Comments on Mark Beeson "What China did and should learn from Japan", 30/01/2016
This article, though probably good in economics, is unfortunately overblown in terms of comparing China’s current military stance, or even its or approach in the South China Sea or East China Sea, with that of Imperial Japan in the second half of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century. Japan was then a militarised country, expansionary and aggressor, invaded quite a number of countries in Asia.
It is hard to understand the author could get the comparison so wrong. Even in economic and developmental aspects, it is doubtful that the China model is similar to the Japan model.
In terms of development stage, China is now far from the stage of 1990 Japan. As a result, there is still a long way for China to go to ‘exhaust’ the role of state in maintain rapid growth, if the argument of the different roles of state (institution reforms) needs to evolve.
PS: That piece by Beenson, shows some economists may get very strange perspective when they apply their economics knowledge to something new to them, even though I am an economist too.
Showing posts with label military. Show all posts
Showing posts with label military. Show all posts
2011-05-07
The 1999 Chinese embassy bombing and international injustice
Comments on Patrick Chin-Dahler “The anniversary of the 1999 Chinese embassy bombing”, May 7th, 2011, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/05/07/the-anniversary-of-the-1999-chinese-embassy-bombing/
The US explanation or excuse of due to mistake of using old map was never credible and convincing, at least to virtually all Chinese on the mainland.
Most Chinese believed (and still do probably) that the US purposefully and deliberately targeted Chinese embassy to teach China a lesson to show China the differences in military power between the two countries. Many believed that the US and NATO might have used this action to retaliate China for its opposition to their military action against Yugoslavia and to teach other countries that dared to oppose a lesson too.
Off course China was powerless then to respond in military terms due to the lack of projection power and the much inferior military fighting power and technologies.
That was an international military power display to humiliate China by the US and NATO possibly
The US explanation or excuse of due to mistake of using old map was never credible and convincing, at least to virtually all Chinese on the mainland.
Most Chinese believed (and still do probably) that the US purposefully and deliberately targeted Chinese embassy to teach China a lesson to show China the differences in military power between the two countries. Many believed that the US and NATO might have used this action to retaliate China for its opposition to their military action against Yugoslavia and to teach other countries that dared to oppose a lesson too.
Off course China was powerless then to respond in military terms due to the lack of projection power and the much inferior military fighting power and technologies.
That was an international military power display to humiliate China by the US and NATO possibly
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
