Hey U all there! What do u think about The People Republic of China becoming superpower later in this century? What would be the likely changes in the dynamics of world politics and security in such a changed scenario? Could you make any hypothetical assumption of such transformation? What would be the fate of the US glory? Is this transformation would be easily achieved? Can you imagine, US becoming something like The Great Britain now stands (US becoming unconditional supporter/ally)? What would be the overall prosperity of Asians? What would be the role of Nepal? Nepal would be able to formulate its policies as a sovereign and independent country? What would be the challenges and prospects of Nepal by then?

Nut

Japan will one day think that China is near to it in cultural and civilizational terms and turn its back to US and join hands with China.


MR NEW, u talk of china like it's a benevolent liberal state, that has goodwill at it's core, and therfore will draw asian neighbours to its cause, simply cause it radiates goodness.
get with it, dude, " kaching"
if the worlds a chessboard.nepal is smaller then a pawn,
u wish for a world where china is unanswerable to theworld. nah, i reckon we need the west.
atleast the west has some semblance of the rights to democracy and notions of humanity and freedom. u want china to be a state that is unparalled in every aspect, ie the right to go about it's duties unchecked. bomb taiwan, kill all the "" guinea pigs" in tibet, burn the muslims in the north east , scrap all the good that's been done in hk, send the thousands that are there, eke ing out a living..
all so u can have a cheaper dvd player???
f*uck u. and the platform u stand on....
f*uck u again

shame on u to put the disgraceful f*** word while discussing on this serious matter. u got ur real point, how cheap a man u r. all u have learned from the democracy in the US is to speak those filthy f*** words???? shame on your filthy tantrum

f*uck u

a f*ck, f*cs u up, but so offhandishly stating that an entire race
of people are nothing more than labotary rats is fine with u doesn't slide with me......
so here.... here i go again.....
F*CK u
somethings are better plainly said kya.....
scroll down





























































































F*ck u
i bet u fell for that too.
u ignorant bastar*.

well said thug.thats wat u know all abt.

thank u, i bet u scrolled down too.....
sieg heil and all that....
massa

hummmm newuser, you are correct. Using F word makes a man cheap. i don't know what kdee has written above, but i can guess he is making himself cheap.

presidentofnepal2035
what is a bigger sin?
saying the f word OR implying that an entire race of people are lab rats.
i'm only asking this question bcoz, f*uck, i want to see what the govt's
going to be like in 2035.
dang.... i think i just lost my case. ;)

i dint say them lab rats. if u revise the text, it clearly says that china is experimenting its developement efforts on tibet. Thats what a common sense can make out of my opinion. But it seems you have a hard day today. I feel sorry for u .

Posted on 01-26-05 10:14 AM Reply | Notify Admin
tibet is tranforming rapidly.
as the research laboratory of the chinese government
Posted on 01-26-05 10:44 AM Reply | Notify Admin
tibetans have been the guinea pig for the last few years. dont u agree???

brother..... i tried to read between the lines,but all i got was...
ure a guinea pig.....and omg i didn't mean labrat, i meant guinea pig as in lovable flufffy things, that i ocassionally spit on .... but
its all right .. i hug them when the cameras are around...
see, i don't swear..prefer sarcasm
but against people like u even the lowest form of humour doesn't work.
and i gots to resort to your level.
so there u go
F*ck u.
i'll save u the scroll.
and stop denying u said tibetans were labrats.....
it's there in blacknwhite...
for f*cks sake.....
i'm pissed cause my gals tib, but i would be otherwise too,
u racist c*nt

Iso Freak thanx for great deal of information..
But what I understood from your reading is- Russia is so much concern about radical developement of Chinese mainly in weaponary power, and under any circumstances Russia along with Japan may not to let (strategically) China to fill power vacuum in South-east asia but isn't it true Russia has coorporate China with Strategic military modernization?

But what I believe is Sino-Russian relation is based on thier common interests and their willingness to cooperate diplomatically against US policies that they see as unfriendly to their interest. The closer ties with Russia have already resulted in a strategic relationship that is designed to counter the influence of the US. But still based on this evidence Chinese supremacy cannot be overated.

I would have to disagree with some of the panels here.
I find it very interesting how Japan will turn to China. I guess few of you are forgetting that there is a big ideology difference between these two countries. As long as China is red country, there will be some mix interactions.
If China adopts Democracy, then there will be a whole new world. And let me remind you something, China is very passive country. It doesn't interfere with other's affair, so forget about it influencing Nepali politics. As you may have read or heard few months ago, China had signed a huge Trade Agreement with India. That means we can forget about China supporting us against India. We will be the same "Yam (tarul) between two rocks and some pests like GP Koirala, Babu Ram, Prachanda, and Royals".

ISO,

On militarism and hegemony...

The end of the last century has undoubtedly heralded the beginning of diminishing relevance of military might in global politics, I believe. Replaced by economic ties, the 21st century will see increasing irrelevance of militarism in the formation of alliances, hegemony and power politics. This not to say that militarism will be completely wiped out from global politics, but I foresee it playing far less significance than economic and social (include religious) issues.

From Nepal, to Palestine, to Iraq we can see that the state armies with far better training and far better equipments are hopelessly failing to quell their counterparts who are armed merely with rag-tag armory. I mean, what good is militarism in today's world if an army of over 160,000 (based in Iraq) GPS-carrying, body armour-wearing, backed by unsurpassable state-of-the-art heavy machinery, troops, finds itself helpless in even controlling -- let alone defeat -- only a few-thousand strong counterparts who are barely armed with old, worn out AK-47s, RPGs (Rocket Propelled Grenades) and IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices)?

Even the old STRONG allies (France, Germany and the US, in the case of Iraq) are now facing increasing rifts between themselves because of conflicting economic interests -- their old alliance based on MILITARISM to counter the Soviet threat is all but completely irrelevant now.

More recently, even Iran, whose army would obviously be considered primitive compared to the US', was undeterred -- vis-a-vis their nuclear programs -- by the prospects of being attacked, either covertly by Israel or opening by the US. In the end, the Iranians prevailed by astutely using diplomatic, and I strongly suspect economic, tools with the EU.

Therefore, I strongly doubt that China's military backwardness -- as compared to the West or Russia -- may be an obstacle towards their aspirations of becoming a superpower. Then again, I suspect that it should be fairly easy to rapidly modernize one's army if it's economy is strong and it's coffers full.

On hegemony...

Yes, at the outset (I have yet to do more study on this) I too would believe being a hegemon would be a criteria to becoming a superpower. Nevertheless, don't you think China already is, or is in a rapid pace to be, a hegemon at least in the South-East Asia, if not Asia (considering Japan as it's closest potential rival)? By virtue of it's rapidly growing economy and the strong ties with other countries, neighbors or otherwise, this growth brings with it, I think it's not quite unfathomable that China be considered a hegemon in the region.

But what I understood from your reading is- Russia is so much concern about radical developement of Chinese mainly in weaponary power, and under any circumstances Russia along with Japan may not to let (strategically) China to fill power vacuum in South-east asia but isn't it true Russia has coorporate China with Strategic military modernization?

=> It is true, however the cooperation extends upto a certain limit. Both may well work together to build a new model of Kalishnikov better than the existing ones, but when it comes to misile defense shields and other sophisticated weaponary that Russia is developing, it won't share it's technological secrets with China. Even during the cold war, when there was a threat of a nucealr attack on China, Russia backed off from its earlier pledge to help China develop nuclear weapons. Russia's recent Japan tilt is worth noting.


But what I believe is Sino-Russian relation is based on thier common interests and their willingness to cooperate diplomatically against US policies that they see as unfriendly to their interest. The closer ties with Russia have already resulted in a strategic relationship that is designed to counter the influence of the US. But still based on this evidence Chinese supremacy cannot be overated.

=> Yes, this is mainly the case in what's happening in/around Central Asian cases but this alliance against America, in my opinion won't last for long. Because of Russia's defense capabilities, and it's coming up with technologies that are aimed against American missile shield program, it is in the best American interests to side with China than with Russia. Andrew Nathan, a Columbia University Prof. of China/Chinese Affairs says China-US relations is a strategic partnership, its not like your traditional diplomatic relations. If Russia goes ahead with its defense strengthening, then America and China will have no choice but to forge an alliance again agaisnt Russia, just like in the 70s.

Then Russia will try to woo Japan throgh oil and other deals. If two countries, Japan and Russia forge a trade/security alliance against China, then America will have to keep on supporting China, and China will have to keep on supporting America ..Furthermore, rise of nationalism in Japan, and Japan's insistence on recreating its army, will sooner or later offset the balance of power in the region because Japan with its money can buy defense equipments from Russia, which will put both America and China in a security dilemma, giving yet another reason for China and America to continue with their partnership against Russia-Japan alliance.

Poonte bro,

Your's are the comments I look forward to reading on IR stuff.

la poonte bro sita disagree garun.. :-)

"The end of the last century has undoubtedly heralded the beginning of diminishing relevance of military might in global politics, I believe. Replaced by economic ties, the 21st century will see increasing irrelevance of militarism in the formation of alliances, hegemony and power politics. This not to say that militarism will be completely wiped out from global politics, but I foresee it playing far less significance than economic and social (include religious) issues. "

Yes, this is true but not for the whole world. Its happening only in Western Europe. They have all those defense agreements and pacts and their army is trained to be a defensive army, which Mandelbaum says, "a vegetarian lion." In other parts of the world, the lion is yet to beconme a vegetarian.

"From Nepal, to Palestine, to Iraq we can see that the state armies with far better training and far better equipments are hopelessly failing to quell their counterparts who are armed merely with rag-tag armory. I mean, what good is militarism in today's world if an army of over 160,000 (based in Iraq) GPS-carrying, body armour-wearing, backed by unsurpassable state-of-the-art heavy machinery, troops, finds itself helpless in even controlling -- let alone defeat -- only a few-thousand strong counterparts who are barely armed with old, worn out AK-47s, RPGs (Rocket Propelled Grenades) and IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices)? "

This one is true too.., but the rah tag armies against which the national armies are mobilized in Iraq, Palestine and Nepal are not LEGITIMATE armies, so the whole rule of warfare changes here.The GPS carrying, bullet prrof wearing army is not fighting a conventional warfare. It is fighting a dirty war. War will still be on the international agenda as it was during the time of the Peloponnesian War.

"Even the old STRONG allies (France, Germany and the US, in the case of Iraq) are now facing increasing rifts between themselves because of conflicting economic interests -- their old alliance based on MILITARISM to counter the Soviet threat is all but completely irrelevant now. "

This one I agree. But again, when Russia re-emrges as a military giant again in the next few years, and then who will they look towards? Of course, America. I mean, I agree there's a rift between Europe and the US now, but a powerful Russia is as much of a threat to Europe as it is to America.

I totally agree with you on the Iranian example. Diplomacy is in, but diplomacy can take things upto a certain limit.. tyaspachi k? For example, if tomorrow the Iranian clerics ina bid to win legitimacy, decide to relaunch the nuclear program, then what? What options will America have? America will have to gathera coalition to attack Iran.. or just do it alone.


Therefore, I strongly doubt that China's military backwardness -- as compared to the West or Russia -- may be an obstacle towards their aspirations of becoming a superpower. Then again, I suspect that it should be fairly easy to rapidly modernize one's army if it's economy is strong and it's coffers full.

This is true. I agree. But given China's neighbors with historical unresolved issues, and India, another emerging regional player in its backyard, China will have to spend more on defense than developmnet, if it wants to become a superpower. And at this time/ moment China cannot spend more on defense, it has to spend on development.

On hegemony:

I see your point. I don't want to embarass by typing anta-santa on this because I raised this issue. So give me some time to think, and I'll get back to you, hopefully with my counter points. But good points on South East Asia.

But given China's neighbors with historical unresolved issues=- But given China's neighbors with whom it has historical unresolved issues

Not only Russia, but even Latin America is looking for ways to free itself from the economic dependence on the US.

Chinese President's visit to the region last month(?) was a significant event in growing Sino-Latino ties and their respective desires to catch up to the US fast. Billions of dollars of deals were made, particularly with Brazil on steel and gas resources, while the Americans could only watch in awe.

The bottom line is: The old concept of superpower as a military giant is rapidly fading away. The new era of superpower(ship) based on economic hegemony has already begun, and I strongly believe that that will be the way of the future.

This not to undermine the economic clout that the US still possess. However, with increasing desires among other nations -- even among US' old allies -- to free themselves from economic dependence on US will eventually alienate US and dethrone it as the only superpower in the world.

The decision to invade Iraq has added more fuel towards the downfall of the US, I believe. This (mis)adventure has not only made the US lose respect (everyone can see the inadaquacies of supposedly the mightiest army on earth!), but the cost of this war, which will run into hundreds of billions of dollars, will definitely have an adverse effect on US economy, further devastating the stature of economic powerhouse that the US once was.

Appreciate your comments, ISO...

Aba, more tomoroow hai...ahile hattar bho! :)

Poonte bro,

Yes, Latin Americans and even Australians are looking towards China for trade, but I won't be very optimistic regarding China-Latin America, China-Africa partnerships because the regimes in both regions are unstable and given the history of dicatorships in both regions, who knows there might be Pro-American dicators coming to power, and abandoning their dealings with China alltogether. Latin AMericans are already feeling threatened by China's export of textiles to the west and America. If the partnership lasts for long, it will definately a win-win for Latgin America, China and Africa (and also, Australia) but America will try its best to not to let this happen. America too has $$$ and some of the finest brains in the world. So let's not just underestimate America based on the Iraqi example.

yeti bhandai, ma aaba euta churot salkayera tyo hegemony ko barey ma sochna thalchu..

OK, on hegemony:

I personally think that to become a superpower, you have to be a hegemon. You have to have a total control over neighbor's policies. You have to be taller than those around you. And you have to have, besides economic power, an unmatched military power (or less matched military power) and your ideology, your views should be agressively promoted. China is yet to develop its ideological export.

South East Asian nations share the same historical/cultural tradition as the Chinese. They believe in Confucianism, there's a large Chinese community and they are increasingly dependant on China for trade. Also they are sympathetic towards China, but they are not under China's sphere of influence. Now they have started to take pride in their Chinese heritage, but because of the political differences and their dependence on America, the suspicion which developed in the 60s between them (China-SE Asia) is still there. The South East Asian nations will on the one hand cherish their close ties with China, on the other hand, become increasinlgly wary of China's growth, because they have to change their own domestic and foreign policies to match, out-match and un-match with that of China. This leads to another round of suspicion without clearing away the first round that developed in the 60s when China embarked on it's most costly adventure of all time, the Cultural Revolution.

Also many of the South East Asian nations are rich and theirs relationship with China is a symbiotic relationship. If either party tries to offset the status quo, then it won't be very productive for both. So China will not seek hegemony or do anything on its part unles forced to, to do anything that will offset the present status quo in the region. The governmnets in SE Asia will adapt a policy to be on the good side of both China and America, without either influencing in their domestic and foreign policies. ASEAN might emerge as a EU to counter China, if China embarks on the path of becoming a hegemon. So yoiu might actually see 3 economic superpowers- Japan, China and ASEAN- but not a military-economic superpower, if things remain the way they are now.

Defensewise, America will remain on the top followed by Russia and then China. Russia and China will move from the periphery to the core but America will remain at the core of the core. Neither Russia, nor Japan nor China have the ability yet - nor theya re likely to have one anytime soon, unless they all decide to forge an alliance against Ameriacan hegemony, which I don't see very likely in the present scenario - to occupy the core of the core position.

mero bhannu yetti ho.