NATO & China

[ORAC]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/nato-wants-global-fightback-to-stop-china-s-bullying-g7k6xgd9t

Nato wants global fightback to stop China’s ‘bullying’

China is threatening open societies and individual freedoms, the head of Nato (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trumps-german-withdrawal-endangers-us-all-rcskxxsfq) warned, calling for a new focus from the military alliance on the threat posed by Beijing’s “bullying and coercion”.

Jens Stoltenberg (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/nato-reflection-panel-rethinks-future-after-warning-shot-from-president-macron-7jt6mw3hr) said Nato needed a “more global approach” in response to the threat posed by China, a proposal that will be welcomed in Washington, where President Trump has urged a tougher stance towards Beijing, which has emerged as the world’s second largest military spender after the US.

“The rise of China is fundamentally shifting the global balance of power, heating up the race for economic and technological supremacy, multiplying the threats to open societies and individual freedoms and increasing the competition over our values and our way of life,” the organisation’s secretary-general said in a speech setting out his vision for Nato up to 2030.

“They’re coming closer in cyberspace, we see them in the Arctic, in Africa, we see them investigating in our critical infrastructure,” he added. “And they’re working more and more with Russia. All of this has security consequences for Nato allies”.

“Nato does not see China as the new enemy,” Mr Stoltenberg insisted. “But . . . they already have the second largest defence budget [in the world]. They are investing heavily in modern military capabilities, including missiles that can reach Nato-allied countries.”

“As we look to 2030, we need to work even more closely with like-minded countries, like Australia, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea, to defend the global rules and institutions,” Mr Stoltenberg said......

Mr Stoltenberg said coronavirus had “magnified tensions and trends when it comes to security,” reflecting a growing realisation in the West about the dangers of its reliance on China for goods and technology........

[Jackonicko]

People aren't listening, and as a result there's no 'will' to do anything, and by the time there is, it will be too late!

That's being exacerbated by vested interests who rely on cheap Chinese manufacturing for their profits and/or supply chains, and who prefer to see China as just another trading partner.

How else could we explain why we give diplomatic recognition to the PRC - an undemocratic, totalitarian, oppressive, expansionist dictatorship - rather than to Taiwan - a progressive liberal democracy?

[Barksdale Boy]

Wondering

You ask if anyone remembers Tiananmen; in Hong Kong we do.

[Flying Hi]

People aren't listening, and as a result there's no 'will' to do anything, and by the time there is, it will be too late!
That's being exacerbated by vested interests who rely on cheap Chinese manufacturing for their profits and/or supply chains, and who prefer to see China as just another trading partner.


Back in the day I spent YEARS and YEARS trying to get components, both electronic and mechanical, manufactured ANYWHERE ELSE except China and the FE. We'd have paid the going rate.
Western world simply not interested.

[dead_pan]

Never really wondered why China really bothers trying to match the US militarily. Give it 20 or 30 years they could achieve dominance by simply carrying on as-is, save the odd release of a virus here, the odd hack there, plus the liberal supply of fetnanyl and occasional social media blitz.

[Less Hair]

It is a good thing that NATO finally realizes that this China topic is highly relevant to Europe as well. Not only to the US or Asia and Africa.

[West Coast]

An organization iso a mission.

[Flying Hi]

An organization iso a mission.
Care to elucidate on the meaningless message? Or Troll??

[OldLurker]

I think the PRC government knows by now that the West, and even China's near neighbours, don't dare or don't have the capability to resist Chinese expansion. Tibet was annexed long ago; the Chinese military is now established across the South China Sea, having fortified most of the islands there, despite their being far from China and claimed by other countries, with hardly a peep from the US and no pushback. My guess is that there's a faction, at least, in the People's Liberation Army that calculates that sometime soon they might be able to overwhelm Taiwan with a fast, massive invasion and the US would make some symbolic bleats but would quite quickly accept the fait accompli. The Chinese have recently been pushing against India too. And of course they now hold strategic assets across the world, including seaports in places like Sri Lanka and Greece which, if the Chinese chose, could over time gently morph into naval bases. Stoltenberg is right to flag up the issue but whether anything serious will be done, remians to be seen.

[Asturias56]

I suspect they'll have a lot of problems bringing along all the NATO countries in any action against China.

I don't think we should be to worried about Chinese sea ports in various places - like the German overseas bases at the start of WW1 and WW2 remote naval bases are easily mopped up.

I'm rather intrigued by the actions on the Indo-Chinese border - it's a classic area that , in a perfect world, they'd sit down quietly and sort it all out - there is nothing of value there - but they continue to argue over claims going back to the Raj years before either of the current parties were anywhere near power- crazy!

[Trim Stab]

The USA has been losing the propaganda war worldwide since WW2 - by looking for “enemies” to feed its insatiable military-industrial complex beginning slowly by invading small defenceless states like Vietnam, then Panama, a bit faster in GW1 (remember the lies about Kuwaiti incubators) then GW2, and so on.. And now they undermine and show the fallibility of their “democratic” system by electing an utter moron who can’t be removed despite their “fabled” constitution, who is answerable only to vested corporate interests (most of which are military linked) Even worse, a vast proportion of their population don’t even think he is a moron and the whole country is deeply divided.

By contrast China has been slowly and steadily building world dominance with a collegiate/corporate leadership style, which invests massively in education, science and technology, and worldwide trade.

China will be long term winner...

[Just a spotter]

Since when does capitalism have a conscious?

The Quaker Capitalists of the 1800's. A cohort of business people who due to the religious intolerance within the UK around that time had limited options on which industries they could practice in.

Their success is reflected in the fact that their names still remain in the public domain; Cadbury, Fry, Roundtree.

https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/the-quaker-capitalist-and-the-chocolate-factory

JAS

[OldLurker]

The Quaker Capitalists of the 1800's. A cohort of business people who due to the religious intolerance within the UK around that time had limited options on which industries they could practice in.

Their success is reflected in the fact that their names still remain in the public domain; Cadbury, Fry, Roundtree.And their decline is reflected in the fact that those names are now mere brands of giant international conglomerates: Fry was acquired by Cadbury which is now owned by Mondelez (formerly Kraft); Rowntree is now owned by Nestlé. Sadly, the admirable Quaker business ethos is long gone.

[West Coast]

Care to elucidate on the meaningless message? Or Troll??


What’s meaningless about it? The Chinese threat has existed for years, but only now that NATO’s scope and even existence is called into question do they feel the need to pivot towards China.

The Soviet tank divisions aren’t pointed towards West Germany anymore. The absence of an existential threat to European democracy is recognized not only in Brussels but in capitals on both sides of the Atlantic. The French are hot to trot to rob funding, personnel and mission for a notional joint European army, external to Europe the US is pulling troops from Germany. Minus a really big boogeyman (Vlad ain’t big enough) the need for NATO in its current form is in question, ergo NATO needs a new enemy to justify its mission.

Article 5 which is truly the heart of NATO applies to attacks in Europe or North America. Do you expect your nation’s blood to be spilled and treasure spent on account of a Chinese attack on a third party outside those areas? Recall the political vacillating and hand wringing when your fellow Europeans were slaughtered during an ethnic cleansing. Now turn that into Taiwan being invaded or Naval ships being sunk trying to keep the South China Sea free for navigation. You really think there is the political will (not to mention public consensus) to fight that war far from Europe?

[Buster Hyman]

You really think there is the political will (not to mention public consensus) to fight that war far from Europe?
Considering that so many came from "far from Europe" to help in their fights, one would hope they'd be decent enough to return the favour. :ok:

[Asturias56]

I think it'll be hard to convince the inhabitants of most of C & E Europe that we should be looking for trouble on the other side of the world - they might ask , if you're so keen, why not form a new alliance there - something like - well call it the South East Asian Treaty Organisation........... oh...........................

[alf5071h]

NATO was intended to be a combined military and economic alliance.
The post WW2 threat was the Russian military build up; history indicates that economics reduced that threat; it took a long time.

The current world situation might now see China as posing a greater economic threat than a militarily one.
Post Covid the balance of economic forces could change significantly; if so NATO could be a useful grouping of nations to provide a defensive response if required.
China might consider that their commercial strength is defensive, protecting the home interests whilst restructuring as will be necessary in future years.

[racedo]

What’s meaningless about it? The Chinese threat has existed for years, but only now that NATO’s scope and even existence is called into question do they feel the need to pivot towards China.

The Soviet tank divisions aren’t pointed towards West Germany anymore. The absence of an existential threat to European democracy is recognized not only in Brussels but in capitals on both sides of the Atlantic. The French are hot to trot to rob funding, personnel and mission for a notional joint European army, external to Europe the US is pulling troops from Germany. Minus a really big boogeyman (Vlad ain’t big enough) the need for NATO in its current form is in question, ergo NATO needs a new enemy to justify its mission.

Article 5 which is truly the heart of NATO applies to attacks in Europe or North America. Do you expect your nation’s blood to be spilled and treasure spent on account of a Chinese attack on a third party outside those areas? Recall the political vacillating and hand wringing when your fellow Europeans were slaughtered during an ethnic cleansing. Now turn that into Taiwan being invaded or Naval ships being sunk trying to keep the South China Sea free for navigation. You really think there is the political will (not to mention public consensus) to fight that war far from Europe?

We disagree often but we also agree often and this is one.

NATO was set up to counter Warsaw pact, it broke up and NATO had spent decades trying to find a reason why it could still suck at the Taypayers bank account. Many of the people there need an enemy to continue to justify their self worth / wealth and power.

They need a bogeyman and will invent one to keep relevant.

[ORAC]

NATO was set up to counter Warsaw pact
Wrong way round.

NATO was formed in April 1949. Germany was allowed to rearm and join NATO on 6th May 1955.

The Warsaw Pact was formed in response on 9th May 1955.

NATO has never previously concerned itself with China because its Charter, Article 6, limits its operations too:

“the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer”.

It is China’s increasing interest and operations in the Arctic regions, Greenland etc and purchasing/negotiating ports and other basing rights within that area - plus cyber attacks and infiltration - which have forced NATO to take notice.

[Lonewolf_50]

We disagree often but we also agree often and this is one.

NATO was set up to counter Warsaw pact, it broke up and NATO had spent decades trying to find a reason why it could still suck at the Taypayers bank account. Yes, and they arrived at, all 16 nations, including YOURS, the decision that "out of area operations" were in the interests of collective security. I was around when that was going on, in NATO as my job, and I was rather surprised that the fundamental nature of the alliance was thus transformed.
Given the political tenor of the times in the US, I fully expected that by the end of the 90's the US would be out of NATO, as its purpose had been fulfilled.
Glad I didn't put money on that bet, I'd have lost.

[West Coast]

We disagree often but we also agree often and this is one.

NATO was set up to counter Warsaw pact, it broke up and NATO had spent decades trying to find a reason why it could still suck at the Taypayers bank account. Many of the people there need an enemy to continue to justify their self worth / wealth and power.

They need a bogeyman and will invent one to keep relevant.

Now before you think we had a mind meld, let me be clear. Vlad is a threat, just not one big enough to need the US in NATO to keep him in check.

[Asturias56]

"Yes, and they arrived at, all 16 nations, including YOURS, the decision that "out of area operations" were in the interests of collective security"

I don't think anyone has cared to make this clear to the respective electorates Wolf - I really can't see anyone in the EU backing action against China - and even the Brits will drag their feet something terrible.

[42...]

No one is fighting China, they will take what they want when they want because the youth of today are apathetic. Unless they want to control a downtown section of Seattle, then they are all bristly, until they find Starbucks is closed.