China Begins ‘Unrestricted Warfare'

Quote:

---

China Begins ‘Unrestricted Warfare'
NewsMax.com
Thursday, Aug. 25, 2005
Chinese Web sites are being used to target computer networks in the U.S. Defense Department and other federal agencies.


The hackers have successfully penetrated hundreds of unclassified networks, according to officials who spoke to the Washington Post.


Story Continues Below



Thus far no classified systems have been breached.

But authorities are concerned because even seemingly innocuous information can yield useful intelligence to an enemy when pieced together from various sources.

"The scope of this thing is surprisingly big," said a government official who spoke anonymously to the Washington Post about the incidents, which stretch back as far as three years and have been code-named "Titan Rain" by American investigators.

Some analysts in the Pentagon believe the attacks constitute a coordinated effort by the Chinese government to spy on U.S. databases.

Also, the Chinese published a military manual in 1999 entitled "Unrestricted Warfare." The book calls for "computer" warfare against the United States, the nation China has identified as its likely enemy in a future war.

Not everyone agrees China's military is behind the hacking. Some think the Titan Rain attacks are the work of hackers simply using Chinese networks to disguise the source of the attacks, the Post reports.

But why would civilian hackers be so focused on U.S. military internet platforms? The Pentagon has more computers than any other U.S. agency – about 5 million worldwide – and therefore is the most exposed to hackers.

Pentagon figures reveal that more attempts to penetrate Defense Department systems come from China than from any other nation.

Lt. Col. Mike VanPutte, vice director of operations for the Pentagon's Joint Task Force for Global Network Operations, said this doesn't mean that China is the original source of the attacks, only that it is "the last hop" before they reach their targets.

China is favored by hackers because the country has 119 million Internet users, and many of their computers can be compromised, said VanPutte. Also, there are no cyber-investigation agreements between China and the U.S.

Last year the number of attempted attacks from all sources totaled about 79,000, and hackers succeeded in gaining access to a Defense Department computer in about 1,300 cases, officials said. Computer Warfare Planned

The Pentagon's latest annual report on Chinese military power contained a section on the development of computer attack systems by China.

It said the People's Liberation Army views computer operations as "critical to seize the initiative" in establishing "electromagnetic dominance" early in a conflict.

"The PLA has likely established information warfare units to develop viruses to attack enemy computer systems and networks," the report stated.

China's plan for "Unrestricted Warfare" was detailed in a manual written by two Chinese colonels.

The manual cites the use of hackers and terrorism in a total war against the U.S.

"Unrestricted Warfare" became a bestselling book in China after Sept. 11. In their book, the Chinese generals had suggested years before the World Trade Center attacks that an attack by Osama bin Laden on the Twin Towers would be an excellent example of new warfare that would destabilize the U.S.

The CIA's translation of the manual reveals that China regards the U.S. as its main enemy, and includes strategies for using computers, smuggling illegal immigrants and using weapons of mass destruction to destroy America.

The manual was developed after the Chinese witnessed America's technological prowess during the 1991 Gulf War. The Chinese colonels sought to develop a strategy using alternative methods that could defeat U.S. technological superiority in a future war.

---

So should we be worried? Is there anything we can do about this?

China will of course somehow play his role as a superpower.

Napoleon once said :

"China is a sleeping giant. Let her lie and sleep, for when she awakens she
will astonish the world." (Sorry if not exactly accurate..)

In fact, US would like such a rival, because leadership needs pushing and rivalry.

In Germany there was a book called Die Gelbe Gefahr (The Yellow Peril) which predicted China's eminence in such a globalised world. Well, you know what they say, attack is the best form of defence.

You know, I am not a very violent person, but from time to time I find myself wishing that the US and Russia would just launch all their ICBMs and blast China back to the Precambrain era.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by meatwad

but from time to time I find myself wishing that the US and Russia would just launch all their ICBMs and blast China back to the Precambrain era.

---

Why?

For hacking into computers?

Hmm ... I wonder if the US would try to do the same in China? :rolleyes:

^^Thats also true..

I find it very hard to believe the US isnt doing exactly the same thing. Yet Im worried, or more accurately, I will be in about 10 years.

What do you guys think,how long it takes China to become serious rival for US?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kagemusha

What do you guys think,how long it takes China to become serious rival for US?

---

10-20 years no more than that, I've read somewhere that within 25 years or so China would have 2 to 3 times more economical power than germany (currently about the N°3 in the world?) at least if the situation would stay the same as now. I've got no problem with them becomming an economical power if they at least became it fair and square. Because untill now they have become it by unfair competition in my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gertgregoor

10-20 years no more than that, I've read somewhere that within 25 years or so China would have 2 to 3 times more economical power than germany (currently about the N°3 in the world?) at least if the situation would stay the same as now. I've got no problem with them becomming an economical power if they at least became it fair and square. Because untill now they have become it by unfair competition in my opinion.

---

You have the same timeframe that i do.About Chinese economics.I think its pretty much out of our hands where large companies concentrate their mass production in the Globalized market.China has some very good advances in that competition.Cheap labour and relatively stable situation,wich cant be sayed from many its competitors.I think that eventually Chinese start to get better income and the mass production will move into cheaper countries. :bow:

Perhaps the best way to slow the sleeping dragons climb to superpowerdom would be for the US to send a new FOX or MTV channel there with every 1,000 jobs sent there ~;) . Soon their young will want as much to do with working as ours AaaHhaa Hhaa Ha! ~D

But seriously I have heard several estimates from anywhere between 10 and 20 years before they are a real powerhouse. I think it might be less. They could certainly flex some major muscle in almost any conflict encountered in the last 10 years if they had wanted to. And I think if the right conflict/situation pushed their buttons they could be very influential. Perhaps Korea in the future? I’m sure that they see the US as a major competitor but the US is also a big part of their economic growth and a resource that will help their economy grow. I doubt they would want to do anything that would end our relationship (at lease not for 10-20 years ~;) ).

Side note: a woman I know was asked to go to China for 16 months and do training at a factory. She was interested and went there to check it out before agreeing. She noted that everything was similar but a bit behind the US equivalent and was considering the position until she was told that because she was a woman and American that she would have to use the same bathroom as the factory workers… it was outside, actually, it was the outside. :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

she would have to use the same bathroom as the factory workers… it was outside, actually, it was the outside. :inquisitive:

---

nice... :embarassed:

If we were to get in a War with China it would probably involve Korea or the Middle East. Also it would be a war of attrition after all China has 26% of the worlds pop. our military forces combined total 1.8 million when they have MILLIONS of people in their country. Also I believe they will wait because right now we are helping them alot and to go to war on us would be a mistake on their half. Question: Is China as technology advanced as us miltary wise?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shottie

If we were to get in a War with China it would probably involve Korea or the Middle East. Also it would be a war of attrition after all China has 26% of the worlds pop. our military forces combined total 1.8 million when they have MILLIONS of people in their country. Also I believe they will wait because right now we are helping them alot and to go to war on us would be a mistake on their half. Question: Is China as technology advanced as us miltary wise?

---

China is no way as advanced, and I'm chinese ~D That is reassuring as Taiwan seems a major stickling issue here

I think China will be a threat in 10-15 years, I doubt it'll take 20. At the moment, many of it's industries are really low value added and very horizontal (as in innovation is not as important as having support of local officials) at least that's what my family say...

Numbers matter far less than they used to. Unless you're doing an Iraq in which case Lord help you without more real boots on the ground, never mind ubertechnology

The difference at the moment between the armed forces of China and the United States is that the US is mobile, where as China is very slow. It simply doesn't have the level of infrastructure and logistics required to move a significant proportion of its military might to concentrate on a location, even if that location were the west of China. China needs to modernise its military if it wants to become a real player on the international scene.

It is this aspect of the modern battlefield that keeps the UK as a major player on the World scene, simply because it has the resources and capability to rapidly deploy sufficient forces anywhere in the globe. It is a prime of example of the importance of quality over quantity of forces in 5th age warfare. Contrast the British army to the army of North Korea.

unless something major happens no war will come I think China is smarter than that they aren't willing to destroy there country over taiwan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

IIRC, doesn't the British army, uh, rely on the US? Last time I bothered to check, Britain hasn't fought a war by itself since the Falklands, which is something I would hardly call a fair fight.

---

That may be but they are our stanchest ally and just because they haven't fought alone dosent mean there army isn't good

true but do you honestly beilve the us would lose agiasnt china

There are some natural limits which are going to rise up and smack China very hard in the near future. Unfortunately, this may make the situation even more unstable. China has a shortage of two resources necessary to continue its economic expansion.

One is energy. They are solving this, in part, with the Three Gorges hydroelectric project. But they are also increasingly reliant on foreign oil. This will become as much of a problem for them as it is for us.

The second shortage, and perhaps the most important in the long run, is water. China, like every other country in the world, has a limited supply of fresh water. Even though that supply is vast in China's case, their usage is also vast. Up until recently, that water has been sufficient to cover their needs for water for farming and food production and also for industrial/economic expansion. But they are quickly approaching a choke point where the industrial usage will cut into food production usage or vice versa. Something will have to give.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aenlic

There are some natural limits which are going to rise up and smack China very hard in the near future. Unfortunately, this may make the situation even more unstable. China has a shortage of two resources necessary to continue its economic expansion.

One is energy. They are solving this, in part, with the Three Gorges hydroelectric project. But they are also increasingly reliant on foreign oil. This will become as much of a problem for them as it is for us.

The second shortage, and perhaps the most important in the long run, is water. China, like every other country in the world, has a limited supply of fresh water. Even though that supply is vast in China's case, their usage is also vast. Up until recently, that water has been sufficient to cover their needs for water for farming and food production and also for industrial/economic expansion. But they are quickly approaching a choke point where the industrial usage will cut into food production usage or vice versa. Something will have to give.

---

Well i'll like to add that China has being doing some exchanges here and some agreements and they now have to their disposse (i don't know from when) the supply of energy and water here in the South, where they're inverting their money. Though i really don't know in what this will end, i hope it's not a war of any kind, the situation here is already pretty unstable, though i doubt that the South will be touched, but one never knows.

I would be willing to bet that most of those breeches hardly come from the Chinese gov. at all, but rather are comitted by people taht are unaffiliated but are just using those networks as lily pads or proxies.

The thing that may put the breaks on a fiesty militaristic China is the Little Emperors.

Second generation children of the one child policy that are the only grandchild of four grandparents.

I don't think that the grandparents will be happy to send their spoilt brats to war when they only have the one.

These Little Emperors are spoilt and will fall naturally into a western style of consummerism.

So Hail the Little Emperors. They may not only stop Chinas overpopulation, they may also stop war.

China will get away with this as everything else. The world is just to scared of China.... Whimps.... ~;)

I aint scared of no chineese man them fightin words :charge: :charge: :charge: :charge: :charge: :charge:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

China will get away with this as everything else. The world is just to scared of China.... Whimps.... ~;)

---

Mass wave attacks are a bummer :bow: :smash: .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

The thing that may put the breaks on a fiesty militaristic China is the Little Emperors.

Second generation children of the one child policy that are the only grandchild of four grandparents.

I don't think that the grandparents will be happy to send their spoilt brats to war when they only have the one.

These Little Emperors are spoilt and will fall naturally into a western style of consummerism.

So Hail the Little Emperors. They may not only stop Chinas overpopulation, they may also stop war.

---

I've also heard it theorized that since there are so many more male one-children than female, that the vast and growing surplus of frustrated, un-married men will eventually provide the perfect engine for China's war-making machine (or even push China to war).

DA

Yeap I heard the same thing that no nation in history with an excess of males has not gone to war.

I'm not sure how scientific or accurate it is, as it does have the faint smell of truth mixed with gah!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

IIRC, doesn't the British army, uh, rely on the US? Last time I bothered to check, Britain hasn't fought a war by itself since the Falklands, which is something I would hardly call a fair fight.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Oh there's no doubt they're good. The individual british soldier is as well trained as any american soldier, some probably better and some probably worse. I just think it's a little silly to say that it could, for example, take on North Korea. Numbers DO matter in a REAL war. Iraq was not a real war. Bosnia was not a real war. All those little horribly one-sided conflicts say nothing for the real power of an army.

---

Hey GC, just refresh my memory, when was the last 'REAL war' in which the United States fought alone?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dgfred

Mass wave attacks are a bummer :bow: :smash: .

---

You know China has sent men into space recently, something only the US and Soviet Union have been able to do?

The Korea war tactics are but a souvenir nowdays, in case of war between China and the US, no single US city would be spared by nuclear bombing.

I think whatever the circumstances China will be the dominating world power.

It is impossible to predict when this will happen, maybe 50 years maybe a century but it WILL happen as it is the only country that is growing and that has the potential for it.

Quote:

---

Originallly stated by Papewaio
..... it does have the faint smell of truth mixed with gah!

---

So many things do. ~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Al Khalifah

Hey GC, just refresh my memory, when was the last 'REAL war' in which the United States fought alone?

---

That would be the civil war, hell there wasn't any other country involved in that one =p then before that there was the American Revolution, two major wars fought by us, in the ~230 years we have been around, sounds like a good run to me. That and the world wars we fought in really wern't our problems, we just kinda finished them off for ya. Then I suppose there was vietnam.....well we lost that one as I recall, so we arn't invincible. I think we would have won it if we had had the support of our people. But we didn't so we pulled out early.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shottie

If we were to get in a War with China it would probably involve Korea or the Middle East. Also it would be a war of attrition after all China has 26% of the worlds pop. our military forces combined total 1.8 million when they have MILLIONS of people in their country. Also I believe they will wait because right now we are helping them alot and to go to war on us would be a mistake on their half. Question: Is China as technology advanced as us miltary wise?

---

The British actualy have some of the best guns in the world, believe it or not, the americans are using British guns in Iraq, the AS50 is capable of firing 1.5 miles within six inches of where the sights are, hold five shots =p as compaired with the Chinese type 79 7.62 only capable of firing .6 miles. American guns are capable of firing nearly as far as British sniper rifles, although I think 1.3 is the farthest I've seen, as for closer combat weapons, the Chinese is stuck using mainly M14's and AKs' of various sorts, the newest of the AKs' is the AK 103, much better than the previous but I havn't seen it's stats yet, I suspect that they are a little bit better than the previous models, but not by much. The american close combat weapons vary a LOT, from M4A1s' to .00 shotties. So in a ground war we would be able to take many times our own number, in combanation with the other weapons that we would use, such as rocket launchers, incindiary grenades, mortar fire, and artilery fire we would use. China doesn't have much of a military outside of its' army.

Chinas navy is moderate, and capable of holding its own, but not nearly as well as the military ships I had the pleasure of touring not more than two years ago. Lastly, for air combat, we are the best....period. Our B-12 bombers and jets are far more capable than anything China could conjure up.

Quote:

---

before that there was the American Revolution

---

:stop: Revisionist History Alert: America could not have won the War of Independance without France. This was not a war fought alone.

Quote:

---

Then I suppose there was vietnam.....well we lost that one as I recall, so we arn't invincible. I think we would have won it if we had had the support of our people. But we didn't so we pulled out early.

---

:stop: Revisionist History Alert: America did not fight alone in the Vietnam War. America had a rather significant military ally in this war in the form of... South Vietnam. Then there were also the 47000 Australian troops deployed to Vietnam and the South Koreans (who lost 5000 soldiers in the war), the New Zealanders, the Thais...

I think you were about right with the American Civil War. You could also have the Mexican-American War (1846-1848).

China is rapidly getting new hardware though, I wouldn't discount the soviet/anyone else willing to sell good hardware root. Sure, it might not be able to match the might of a western navy like the french or US one or even our own in the UK but it's certainantly a worrry. After all, a possible chinese nuclear submarine was detected and caused a rather large raucaus in Japanese waters...

I think China is relying on nukes and the MAD principle here...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ah_dut

I think China is relying on nukes and the MAD principle here...

---

How about the MAB principle... mutually assured bankruptcy?

Correct me if I'm wrong (I know you will) but hasn't China's superpower status come about on the back of it's export industry?. The major export markets being the US and Europe?

The Chinese would have to be crazy to get into a war situation with the "west". Those markets would disappear over night and what would happen to all the western investment in China? Booms can be reversed, war with the west would certainly do that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GonZ

Correct me if I'm wrong (I know you will) but hasn't China's superpower status come about on the back of it's export industry? The major export markets being the US and Europe?

---

A look at the trade imbalance says it all. The Chinese are financing the U.S. debt these days, the way the Japanese did it in the eighties.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Arroyo

I've also heard it theorized that since there are so many more male one-children than female, that the vast and growing surplus of frustrated, un-married men will eventually provide the perfect engine for China's war-making machine (or even push China to war).

DA

---

Or they could all turn gay. ~D

I initially suggested we send FOX and MTV over there but now I think maybe we should send reruns of Will & Grace and… well, still MTV. ~;)

I ,with a group of riends, was given a termwork to prepare a presentation about China (I am a Business Administration Dept. graduate - not a finance freak though..).

They will be catching the world leadership from Japan in economical terms by 2014. They are currently the 3rd best of the world with a stable and enormous level of growth - between 8.5 and 9.5 for the recent years. Stable growth for a significant period of time should be underlined. Turkey caught the same level of growth last year but it is just a flash.

They have the largest coal reserve of the world, energy is not their serious threat as long as Aenlic added their hydroelectric project as an extra option.

Their OPTA analysis claims them to be seriously involved with inaccurate income dispersion throughout the country. The %80 of income is dispersed among the 6 or 8 coastal states (maybe cities) - I remember income levels varying from 30000 to 7000, from coastal states to inner states. They have a big economy but due to their population, they will never be rich, the specialists say.

The centralist and strict Chinese Communist Party somehow slows down or totally prevents the changing needs of the growing middle class. The social corruption is still a huge problem ahead, they will be facing before being a superpower.

Anyway, their economic outburst greatly relies on the incompetible rate of wages paid to workforce. Innovation and quality is still a far reach for their whole industry.

But all these negative points can not prevent the hardworking and ambitious Chinese from being a superpower, I think.

Seeing the Mullahs trained to spread fanatic Islamism against the communist threat once, turning into terrorist freaks now. I am really anxious where the next Cold War will lead to.. Opening a Hell Portal to unleash demons aimed to kill the Dragon maybe? Then what ? Well guess what..

an excelent interwiew

Lee Kuan Yew interview

DER SPIEGEL INTERVIEW WITH SINGAPORE'S LEE KUAN YEW

"It's Stupid to be Afraid"

Singapore's first-ever prime minister, long-time government head and current political mentor Lee Kuan Yew talks about Asia's rise to economic power, China's ambitions and the West's chances of staying competitive.


SPIEGEL: The political and economic center of gravity is moving from the West towards the East. Is Asia becoming the dominant political and economic force in this century?

Mr. Lee: I wouldn't say it's the dominant force. What is gradually happening is the restoration of the world balance to what it was in the early 19th century or late 18th century when China and India together were responsible for more than 40 percent of world GDP. With those two countries becoming part of the globalized trading world, they are going to go back to approximately the level of world GDP that they previously occupied. But that doesn't make them the superpowers of the world.

SPIEGEL: Their leading politicians have publicly discussed the so-called "Asian Century".

Mr. Lee: Yes, economically, there will be a shift to the Pacific from the Atlantic Ocean and you can already see that in the shipping volumes of Chinese ports. Every shipping line is trying to get into association with a Chinese container port. India is slower because their infrastructure is still to be completed. But I think they will join in the race, build roads, bridges, airports, container ports and they'll become a manufacturing hub. Raw materials go in, finished goods go out.

SPIEGEL: You've been the leader of a very successful state for a long time. Returning from your time in China, are you afraid for Singapore's future?

Mr. Lee: I saw it coming from the late 1980s. Deng Xiaoping started this in 1978. He visited Bangkok, Kuala Lumpur and Singapore in November 1978. I think that visit shocked him because he expected three backward cities. Instead he saw three modern cities and he knew that communism -- the politics of the iron rice bowl -- did not work. So, at the end of December, he announced his open door policy. He started free trade zones and from there, they extended it and extended it. Now they have joined the WTO and the whole country is a free trade zone.

SPIEGEL: But has China's success not become dangerous for Singapore?

Mr. Lee: We have watched this transformation and the speed at which it is happening. As many of my people tell me, it's scary. They learn so fast. Our people set up businesses in Shanghai or Suzhou and they employ Chinese at lower wages than Singapore Chinese. After three years, they say: "Look, I can do that work, I want the same pay." So it is a very serious challenge for us to move aside and not collide with them. We have to move to areas where they cannot move.

SPIEGEL: Such as?

Mr. Lee: Such as where the rule of law, intellectual property and security of production systems are required, because for them to establish that, it will take 20 to 30 years. We are concentrating on bio medicine, pharmaceuticals and all products requiring protection of intellectual property rights. No pharmaceutical company is going to go have its precious patents disclosed. So that is why they are here in Singapore and not in China.

SPIEGEL: But the Chinese are moving too. They bought parts of IBM and are trying to take over the American oil company Unocal.

Mr. Lee: They are learning. They have learnt takeovers and mergers from the Americans. They know that if they try to sell their computers with a Chinese brand it will take them decades in America, but if they buy IBM, they can inject their technology and low cost into IBM's brand name, and they will gain access to the market much faster.

SPIEGEL: But how afraid should the West be?

Mr. Lee: It's stupid to be afraid. It's going to happen. I console myself this way. Suppose, China had never gone communist in 1949, suppose the Nationalist government had worked with the Americans -- China would be the great power in Asia -- not Japan, not Korea, not Hong Kong, not Singapore. Because China isolated itself, development took place on the periphery of Asia first.

SPIEGEL: Such a consolation won't be enough for the future.

Mr. Lee: Right. In 50 years I see China, Korea and Japan at the high-tech end of the value chain. Look at the numbers and quality of the engineers and scientists they produce and you know that this is where the R&D will be done. The Chinese have a space programme, they're going to put a man on the Moon and nobody sold them that technology. We have to face that. But you should not be afraid of that. You are leading in many fields which they cannot catch up with for many years, many decades. In pharmaceuticals, I don't see them catching up with the Germans for a long time.

SPIEGEL: That wouldn't feed anybody who works for Opel, would it?

Mr. Lee: A motor car is a commodity -- four wheels, a chassis, a motor. You can have modifications up and down, but it remains a commodity, and the Chinese can do commodities.

SPIEGEL: When you look to Western Europe, do you see a possible collapse of the society because of the overwhelming forces of globalization?

Mr. Lee: No. I see ten bitter years. In the end, the workers, whether they like it or not, will realize, that the cosy European world which they created after the war has come to an end.

SPIEGEL: How so?

Mr. Lee: The social contract that led to workers sitting on the boards of companies and everybody being happy rested on this condition: I work hard, I restore Germany's prosperity, and you, the state, you have to look after me. I'm entitled to go to Baden Baden for spa recuperation one month every year. This old system was gone in the blink of an eye when two to three billion people joined the race -- one billion in China, one billion in India and over half-a-billion in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.

SPIEGEL: The question is: How do you answer that challenge?

Mr. Lee: Chancellor Kohl tried to do it. He did it halfway then he had to pause. Schroeder tried to do it, now he's in a jam and has called an election. Merkel will go in and push, then she will get hammered before she can finish the job, but each time, they will push the restructuring a bit forward.

SPIEGEL: You think it's too slow?

Mr. Lee: It is painful because it is so slow. If your workers were rational they would say, yes, this is going to happen anyway, let's do the necessary things in one go. Instead of one month at the spa, take one week at the spa, work harder and longer for the same pay, compete with the East Europeans, invent in new technology, put more money into your R&D, keep ahead of the Chinese and the Indians.

SPIEGEL: You have seen yourself how hard it is to implement such strategies.

Mr. Lee: I faced this problem myself. Every year, our unions and the Labour Department subsidize trips to China and India. We tell the participants: Don't just look at the Great Wall but go to the factories and ask, "What are you paid?" What hours do you work?" And they come back shell-shocked. The Chinese had perestroika first, then glasnost. That's where the Russians made their mistake.

SPIEGEL: The Chinese Government is promoting the peaceful rise of China. Do you believe them?

Mr. Lee: Yes, I do, with one reservation. I think they have calculated that they need 30 to 40 -- maybe 50 years of peace and quiet to catch up, to build up their system, change it from the communist system to the market system. They must avoid the mistakes made by Germany and Japan. Their competition for power, influence and resources led in the last century to two terrible wars.

SPIEGEL: What should the Chinese do differently?

Mr. Lee: They will trade, they will not demand, "This is my sphere of influence, you keep out". America goes to South America and they also go to South America. Brazil has now put aside an area as big as the state of Massachusetts to grow soya beans for China. They are going to Sudan and Venezuela for oil because the Venezuelan President doesn't like America. They are going to Iran for oil and gas. So, they are not asking for a military contest for power, but for an economic competition.

SPIEGEL: But would anybody take them really seriously without military power?

Mr. Lee: About eight years ago, I met Liu Huaqing, the man who built the Chinese Navy. Mao personally sent him to Leningrad to learn to build ships. I said to him, "The Russians made very rough, crude weapons". He replied, "You are wrong. They made first-class weapons, equal to the Americans." The Russian mistake was that they put so much into military expenditure and so little into civilian technology. So their economy collapsed. I believe the Chinese leadership have learnt: If you compete with America in armaments, you will lose. You will bankrupt yourself. So, avoid it, keep your head down, and smile, for 40 or 50 years.

SPIEGEL: What are your reservations?

Mr. Lee: I don't know whether the next generation will stay on this course. After 15 or 20 years they may feel their muscles are very powerful. We know the mind of the leaders but the mood of the people on the ground is another matter. Because there's no more communist ideology to hold the people together, the ground is now galvanised by Chinese patriotism and nationalism. Look at the anti-Japanese demonstrations.

SPIEGEL: How do you explain that China is spending billions on military modernisation right now?

Mr. Lee: Their modernisation is just a drop in the ocean. Their objective is to raise the level of damage they can deliver to the Americans if they intervene in Taiwan. Their objective is not to defeat the Americans, which they cannot do. They know they will be defeated. They want to weaken the American resolve to intervene. That is their objective, but they do not want to attack Taiwan.

SPIEGEL: Really? They have just passed the aggressive anti-secession law and a general has threatened to use the nuclear bomb.

Mr. Lee: I think they have put themselves into a position internationally that if Taiwan declares independence, they must react and if Beijing's leadership doesn't, they would be finished, they would be a paper tiger and they know that. So, they passed the anti-secession law to tell the Taiwanese and the Americans and the Japanese, "I do not want to fight, but if you allow Taiwan to go for independence, I will have to fight." I think the anti-secession law is a law to preserve the status quo.

SPIEGEL: Another critical point in Asia is the growing rivalry between China and Japan.

Mr. Lee: It's been dormant all this while, right? But I think several things happened that upped the ante. They possibly coincide with the policy of Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi. There is this return to "we want to be a normal country." They are sending ships to Afghanistan to support the Americans, they sent a battalion to Iraq, they reclaimed the Senkaku islands, and most recently, they joined the Americans in declaring that Taiwan is a strategic interest of Japan and America. That raises all the historical memories of the Japanese taking away Taiwan in 1895. Then they're applying to be a permanent member of the Security Council. So, I think the Chinese decided that this is too much. So, they have openly said they will object to Japan becoming a member of the Security Council.

SPIEGEL: Well, the United States said the same to Germany.

Mr. Lee: Exactly. So, the whole process is trying to define the position for the next round, maybe in 10 to 15 years, by which time the world will be a different place.

SPIEGEL: Can the Chinese convince their North Korean ally Kim Jong-Il to get rid of his nuclear program?

Mr. Lee: North Korea is a riddle wrapped up in an enigma. The leaders in North Korea believe that their survival depends upon having a bomb -- at least one nuclear bomb. Otherwise, sooner or later, they will collapse and the leaders will be put on trial like Milosevic for all the crimes that they have committed. And they have no intention of letting that happen.

SPIEGEL: Who can stop them? The Americans?

Mr. Lee: Yes, but at a price, a heavy price.

SPIEGEL: Could the Chinese do it?

Mr. Lee: Possibly. By denying food, denying fuel, so they would implode. But will the Chinese benefit from an imploded North Korea? That brings the South into the North. That brings the Americans to the Yalu River. So, the North Koreans have also done their calculations and know that there are limits.

SPIEGEL: So Kim is in a strong position?

Mr. Lee: If I were Kim I would freeze the programme, tell the Americans you can inspect, but if you attack me, I will use it. That leaves the Americans with the problem of checking and verifying and intercepting ships, aircraft, endless problems.

SPIEGEL: Would that save Kim's regime?

Mr. Lee: In the long run I think they will implode sooner or later because their system cannot survive. They can see China, they can see Russia and Vietnam, all opening up. If they open up, their system of control of the people will break down. So they must go.

SPIEGEL: If the six party talks fail, do you foresee an arms race in Eastern Asia?

Mr. Lee: If the nuclear program is frozen, there won't be an arms race. Eventually, it is not in China's interests to have an erratic Korea nuclear-armed and a Japan nuclear-armed. That reduces China's position.

SPIEGEL: Many Americans fear that China and the US are bound to become strategic rivals. Will this become the great rivalry of the 21st century?

Mr. Lee: Rivals, yes, but not necessarily enemies. The Chinese have spent a lot of energy and time to make sure that their periphery is friendly to them. So, they settled with Russia, they have settled with India. They're going to have a free trade agreement with India -- they're learning from each other. Instead of quarrelling with the Philippines and the Vietnamese over oil in the South China Sea, they have agreed on joint exploration and sharing. They've agreed on a strategic agreement with Indonesia for bilateral trade and technology.

SPIEGEL: But the Americans are trying to encircle China. They have won new bases in Central Asia.

Mr. Lee: The Chinese are very conscious of being encircled by allies of America. But they are very good in countering those moves. South Korea today has the largest number of foreign students in China. They see their future in China. So, the only country that's openly on America's side is Japan. All the others are either neutral or friendly to China.

SPIEGEL: During your career, you have kept your distance from Western style democracy. Are you still convinced that an authoritarian system is the future for Asia?

Mr. Lee: Why should I be against democracy? The British came here, never gave me democracy, except when they were about to leave. But I cannot run my system based on their rules. I have to amend it to fit my people's position. In multiracial societies, you don't vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion. Supposing I'd run their system here, Malays would vote for Muslims, Indians would vote for Indians, Chinese would vote for Chinese. I would have a constant clash in my Parliament which cannot be resolved because the Chinese majority would always overrule them. So I found a formula that changes that...

SPIEGEL: ... and that turned Singapore de facto into a one party state. Critics say that Singapore resembles a Lee Family Enterprise. Your son is the Prime Minister, your daughter-in-law heads the powerful Development Agency...

Mr. Lee: ... and my other son is CEO of Singapore Telecoms, my daughter is head of the National Institute for Neurology. This is a very small community of 4 million people. We run a meritocracy. If the Lee Family set an example of nepotism, that system would collapse. If I were not the prime minister, my son could have become Prime Minister several years earlier. It is against my interest to allow any family member who's incompetent to hold an important job because that would be a disaster for Singapore and my legacy. That cannot be allowed.

The interview was conducted by editors Hans Hoyng and Andreas Lorenz.

Translated from the German by Christoper Sultan

http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2005/08...interview.html

Great article. I have so many more questions for him!

They mention China buying parts of IBM and Unocal. Can China buy foreign companies as if it were a company of its own?

The US government cant buy parts of IBM can it? We have a separation of government and business, kind of. If China doesn’t, what’s to stop them from buying up business all over the globe?

Seeing how grossly incompetent we are with domestic issues like FEMA I shudder to think how we are handling foreign issues with China and others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

They mention China buying parts of IBM and Unocal. Can China buy foreign companies as if it were a company of its own?

---

Actually it's Chinese companies buying Western companies not the Chinese government directly.
Of course these companies might be oartly or wholly state-owned, however that is not always the case.

The Unocal bid failed BTW, seemingly due to political pressure from Washington ~;)

Great article and post Vlad ~:cheers: . Clears many things 'worries' I have
been wondering about concerning China.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Al Khalifah

:stop: Revisionist History Alert: America could not have won the War of Independance without France. This was not a war fought alone.

---

Arguable. The essential British problem was an inability to apply effective military pressure in an area as vast as the colonies, given the difficulties of trans-Atlantic distance and the relatively slow link provided by wind-powered naval communication. American forces were out-attritioning the English is many of the smaller skirmishes of the conflict, and had defeated one major British force under Burgoyne. Coupled with increasing anti-war sentiments in Parliament, this may well have resulted in American success even without French intervention.

That having been said, the presence of the French fleet, particularly in the Yorktown campaign, made a material contribution to victory. That, coupled with the international pressure brought on by the intervention of France and Spain (making it a world war), clearly influenced Britain to seek a conclusion more swiftly, and grant America terms that were more generous than they otherwise might have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Al Khalifah

:stop: Revisionist History Alert: America did not fight alone in the Vietnam War. America had a rather significant military ally in this war in the form of... South Vietnam. Then there were also the 47000 Australian troops deployed to Vietnam and the South Koreans (who lost 5000 soldiers in the war), the New Zealanders, the Thais...).

---

Absolutely correct here. Many yanks forget about SEATO and the involvement of the other nations in support of Vietnam. They should not. ARVN forces bore, numerically, the brunt of the conflict, and Aussie forces distinguished themselves as being every bit as good -- and in a couple of cases better -- than their yank co-belligerents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Al Khalifah

I think you were about right with the American Civil War. You could also have the Mexican-American War (1846-1848).

---

America's "real" wars fought without substantial assistance against the opposing faction/factions include:

The War of 1812 (though on their part England's efforts against us were VERY much secondary to the Peninsular campaign etc. against Napoleon; no alliance between France/U.S. existed)

The Mexican-American War

The U.S. Civil War (only "real" war we fought "alone" -- by definition)

The Spanish-American War


Note: Does the fact that it doesn't count as a "real" war matter very much to the U.S. Marine who died in action against Sandino's guerillas?


Seamus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

Actually it's Chinese companies buying Western companies not the Chinese government directly.
Of course these companies might be oartly or wholly state-owned, however that is not always the case.

The Unocal bid failed BTW, seemingly due to political pressure from Washington ~;)

---

Thanks SC. ~:)

Do you see where I was going with the question? If China can act like a company couldn’t it buy or have its state-owned companies buy up companies to make itself more powerful. If it can then it has a big advantage over countries that separate government from free enterprise, corporations, or whatever the proper terminology would be.

That was a very interesting and informative article Vlad. Thanks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vlad The Impaler

an excelent interwiew

---

Indeed it is, thank you very much :bow:

I found his comments about a democracy in a multiracial society like singapore interesting. I see a similar problem in Iraq, one that federalism won't solve. :book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

If it can then it has a big advantage over countries that separate government from free enterprise, corporations, or whatever the proper terminology would be.

---

In this context I'd like to point out that in Europe there are also still many companies that are at least partly state-owned - and some of these also acquired US companies, so such a thing is not so unusual.

It would be problematic if the Chinese companies would get significant government funds just to go on a shopping spree on the global market, but I do not know if this is really the case (I might be wrong but I think that Chinese companies have to do that the "caplitalistic way", i.e. using their own cash and liabilities for acquisitions)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Lt. Col. Mike VanPutte, vice director of operations for the Pentagon's Joint Task Force for Global Network Operations, said this doesn't mean that China is the original source of the attacks, only that it is "the last hop" before they reach their targets.

China is favored by hackers because the country has 119 million Internet users, and many of their computers can be compromised, said VanPutte. Also, there are no cyber-investigation agreements between China and the U.S.

---

Right. It seems nearly all of the attacks come in the form of Myfip, a second-rate pdf-stealing worm that wouldn't penetrate most corporate security barriers.

What are we to make of this? It might just be part of the overall Chinese strategy for intellectual property theft, a giant operation that has been going on since the 1990's. It's not just the Defense Department but a wide variety of networks that have been hit, including State, Energy, Homeland Security and defense contractors. But these are all departments and institutions relevant to U.S. national security, so that makes it unlikely that this a mere property theft scheme.

Nearly all of the attacks originate from IP's in Tianjin province, the birthplace of Chinese modern industry on the Great Northern Plain. Tianjin was one of the first of China's Economic-Technological Development Areas (TEDA), and established as such on December 6, 1984. There are 25 universities and colleges, over 140 research institutes, and numerous vocational and technical schools in Tianjin, with high scientific research levels in over 30 different disciplines and 120 specialties. At present, there are 4 national laboratories, 27 national and ministerial technical test centers, and 21 national science and technology information centers.

However, as the man said, Tianjin could merely be the take-off platform for attacks originating elsewhere. It could also be just a property theft operation that got completely out of hand. Read this bit of research and you wil realise that it may all be the work of the innocuous Mr Zhang...
Get rich quick makes for long life :chinese: