China's Goals for 2014
122
23
0
5
150 Shares
32 comments
The recently concluded “two sessions” in China both summarized Xi Jinping and Li Keqiang’s achievements during their first year in power and set new goals for 2014. The Diplomat speaks with Dr. Kenneth Lieberthal, a senior fellow in foreign policy at the Brookings Institution, about China’s plans for economic reform, environmental clean-up, anti-corruption efforts and managing territorial disputes.
Facebook122
Twitter23
Google+0
LinkedIn5
RELATED STORIES
LATEST BLOGS
LATEST FEATURES
COMMENTS
32
Ivan
March 27, 2014 at 02:22
The shrillness and desperation of 50 centers in pushing the party lineshow that PRC-Beijing clearly has no room to compromise on territorial issues as they have officially stated.
When PRC-Beijing is about to lose control of 90% of what they regard as “territory under the CCP control”, what room is there to compromise on the little that remain and is outside.
Ivan
March 27, 2014 at 03:33
“Anything long divided will surely unite, and anything long united will surely divide ”
“話說天下大勢，分久必合，合久必分”
All the US need to do is to be well armed, ready to act, then wait, and watch for the unstoppable momentum of history to do what it has done for at least 20 centuries of Chinese civilization.
It is unstoppable.
Reversion to the mean.
Ivan
March 27, 2014 at 02:08
As is plainly evident here on the comments, President Xi has little or no impact on the behavior of his PLA units behavior in any policy area except for the use of nuclear weapons.
And President Xi and the CMC is only hanging onto that power for now because the warheads are in a different branch of the Government’s hands than the launchers.
How soon can this rear guard action happen at the rate that Beijing-PRC is shriveling up?
Pan Liangshi may need every troop and tank he can get from the 39th Army.
brunt
March 26, 2014 at 23:53
“In exercising its rights and performing its duties under this Convention in the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State shall have due regard to the rights and duties of other States and shall act in a manner compatible with the provisions of this Convention.”
The above definition is from UNCLOS.
Some people talk about EEZ of PH as if it already exists, no, it is not.
EEZ is up to 200 nm, and could be as small as zero.
Filipinos EEZ not only doesn’t exist because the 9-line claim wasclaimed long ago before PH theoretical EEZ. It is PH EEZ which conflict with existing Chinese 9-line claim, not the other way around.
Filipinos EEZ not only doesn’t exist because the 9-line claim wasclaimed long ago before PH theoretical EEZ. It is PH EEZ which conflict with existing Chinese 9-line claim, not the other way around.
Another flawed statement is that the 9-line is as far as 800 miles away from manilnad China.
Chinese have true control of Taiping Island, the only habitable Island in Spratly and is entitled true EEZ.
Chinese have true control of Taiping Island, the only habitable Island in Spratly and is entitled true EEZ.
Exocet
March 27, 2014 at 02:28
“In exercising its rights and performing its duties under this Convention in the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State shall have due regard to the rights and duties of other States and shall act in a manner compatible with the provisions of this Convention.”
The Philippines and japan have been doing just that for decades China is just trying to muscle in.
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/99689/unclos-explained-why-chinas-claims-in-south-china-sea-are-invalid
and has been stated 1000′s of times before if China had legitimate claims by law to these territories they would take them to international court, but they resist all attempts because deep down they know they have no legitimate claim and are resorting to gunboat diplomacy to try and take them. Modern day China is expansionist and Imperialist just like dynasties past.
China have had basically no maritime culture, the Ming emperors banned it as a threat to their power. And so that leaves Yuan dynasty as the last Chinese dynasty with any claim, but the Yuan dynasty was Mongolian not Chinese, that leaves the Song dynasty as the last Chinese dynasty to have any kind of maritime culture or claims and is some 750 years old and and 5 regimes ago.
And all these ancient dynasties never claimed any of the disputed territories as part of China, that means China itself has no historical claims to the south China sea, simple
brunt
March 27, 2014 at 03:20
What a laugh to read the statement of Solicitor General Francis Jardeleza, kindly provided by you:
“You don’t have to be a rocket scientist, the [nine-dash line] claim violates UNCLOS. The most that China can claim should only be 200 nm outside of Hainan,”
The 11-line claim was done in 1947 when there was no 200 nm by UNCLOS. China’s Taiping Island is right in the middle of Spratlys, barely 250 nm away from Filipino coastline, closer to PH than to Hanan.
To reject to participate in arbitration doesn’t mean to reject law. Quite opposite, it is allowed by the law.
As for maritime culture, pleased read “China unfettered” by Mr Lee Kuan Yew, just published a few hours ago on Forbes.
Ivan
March 27, 2014 at 03:56
Is brunt the replacement for panasia?
Exocet
March 27, 2014 at 04:51
The 11 dash line was a creation of the KMT and ignored and invalid, it was made as an afterthought and not based on any solid evidence. It was even inaccurate because the Chinese at the time didn’t have the means to map them properly. Fictitious claim’s not based on law are non applicable, but the UNCLOS treaty is based on law and China has signed. Just because a few Chinese barges sank in SCS hundreds of years ago doesn’t mean it belongs to them. law is not on China’s side in these disputes and that is why they refuse to go to arbitration and even resort to threatening the Philippines over their participation. because they know the outcome.
And assuming we play devils advocate and say the SCS belongs to China based on historical claims then China can also give up Tibet, Xinjiang and inner Mongolia seeing as they are illegally occupied by China and were never were a part of Song dynasty China.
Whichwaydidhegogeorge?
March 27, 2014 at 03:48
@brunt: If China has historical claims to the SCS, then let’s see it. The same western scientific methods that has allowed us to rapidly understand natural laws, modern medicine, space flight, and the evolution of species are the same methods which are used to separate BS like “Intelligent Design” from the well understood process of evolution can also be used to separate BS fabricated claims that no one outside China believes…because there is NO PROOF.
We’ve been waiting years for this proof which should stand up to scrutiny and peer review. Seems a simple enough matter for which the wumao have no answer except more fabricated BS.
Ivan
March 27, 2014 at 04:38
If you ever traveled in China and visited the “historical” sites like the Great Wall, you will notice that it is surrounded by vendors and peddlers that sell “historical” artifacts like old coins etc.
With Chinese manufacturing capabilities, there is an unlimited supply of historical evidence that can be had on anything you want at the stroke of a pen when backed with copious amounts of RMB.
The tourist visited part of the Great Wall of China is a perfect example of this: It is not the original Great Wall at all, but a reconstructed / reproduction opened to tourists in 1957.
So next time you want historical proof out of anything in China, just let them know in advance. I am sure they can prove that they are a people that originated from the rising sun if pushed hard enough with money.
brunt
March 27, 2014 at 05:06
What proof?
There are many definitions of claim. The claim I am talking about is a demand of ownership of territory and China made that demand openly, lawfully, publically and peacefully.
For almost 30 years, there was no protests from any neighboring nations. That is the proof that it is not part of neighboring property because by law if you don’t protest when a claim made to your property then you lose it.
For almost 30 years, there was no protests from any neighboring nations. That is the proof that it is not part of neighboring property because by law if you don’t protest when a claim made to your property then you lose it.
Tteng
March 26, 2014 at 23:36
Ivan,
————————————————–
“話說天下大勢，分久必合，合久必分”
————————————————–
————————————————–
“話說天下大勢，分久必合，合久必分”
————————————————–
Oh, man….. You got this passage out of one of my favorite Chinese novel: 三國演義 (The Three Kingdoms). I read this when I was 5 or 6th grade, and one of my favorite character is 關公 who wields a sword-staff like a match stick, and everywhere he went- heads got lopped off. Did you know: the novel’s main villain 曹操, is actually a great statesmen/leader and a poet in history.
Anyway, there is some truth to that story line. I read somewhere that Chinese civilization goes thru, on average, a 300-yr dynasty cycle, usually with a beginning and an end with peasant revolution. The rise and fall, mathematically, each takes about 100+ years.
Well, PRC is ~70 years old, so again mathematically, its rise phase still got 30-50 years to go. I suppose China eventually will start to fail, but both you and I won’t be alive to see it. Mathematically, that is.
Btw, have you read 水滸傳, that was another favorite of mine when I was a kid.
Ivan
March 26, 2014 at 23:20
A very interesting question that will need to be asked by US policy makers is at what point do the United States need to be concerned with the inability of the PRC-Beijing regime to deliver the goods on issues such as global climate change.
Ivan
March 26, 2014 at 23:00
There is an eerie sense of the weakening of central authority as President Xi loses more and more face with his most important constituency: the internal factions and cliques.
The inability to swiftly persecute competitors like the Zhou Yongkang faction and remove them completely, speaks to a President that is at best, deeply troubled, and at worse, is fighting a losing battle to remain in power for the balance of his term.
Outside observers thought he started strong by seizing positions like the CMC Chairmanship immediately, but instead, he may have over reached.
Meanwhile, local authority is successfully resisting the efforts of central government to tighten.
brunt
March 26, 2014 at 21:49
The argument that the 9-line claim is questionable because “how do you mark line over flowing water” is flawed.
What is the difference between the 9-dashe line and the 12 nm teritoorial line and 200 nm EEZ line?
They are all lines contain water.
Ivan
March 26, 2014 at 21:42
Professor Kenneth Lieberthal never experienced a China in the other state of nature, that is, the state when central government power withers away and cease to matter to more and more of the so called “local” governments and the “local” branches of the military.
When warlords call the shots, when local authorities no longer care about the imperial edicts, and when the civilization reverts to just that — a collection of vaguely defined and ruled entities.
Regretfully, that, is the norm:
“Anything long divided will surely unite, and anything long united will surely divide ”
“話說天下大勢，分久必合，合久必分”
brunt
March 26, 2014 at 12:25
Number doesn’t lie.
China claimed all land feature os the 9-line claim in 1932;
China made 11-line claim in 1947;
China made again the same claim in 1958, in term of 9-dashed line.
China made 11-line claim in 1947;
China made again the same claim in 1958, in term of 9-dashed line.
All claims met no protests from any countries in the region.
UNCLOS provides legal basis for EEZ, only in 1982, long after Chinese claim in 1932, in 1947 and in 1958.
However, UNCLOS doesn’t provides legal basis for EEZ to claim territory. In fact, EEZ is not territorial water, has no sovereignty.
Even EEZ would be misused, streched to have sovereignty, it is still can’t claim already claimed territory because doing so would violate first claim first own, the basic law of territory.
In fact, all the disputes in South China Sea are as recent as since 1970s.
In fact, all the disputes happens inside of China’s claim, claimed long ago.
In fact, all the disputes happened outside of any other countries’ territory.
To all fair minded, to all objective minded, the space and the time tell all: China is invaded by small nations, there is no disputes as far as land features concerned. Even for water, China’s claim doesn’t violate any laws at the time.
JL
March 26, 2014 at 16:44
Ignorance is a bliss! The Qing started war aggression against Annam (Vietnam) over those Paracel islands during the 1800′s which the French retaliated in full and gave the chinese a bloody noses. Go check with facts in wikipedia.
Exocet
March 26, 2014 at 19:16
“All claims met no protests from any countries in the region”
don’t mistake ‘met no protests’ with simply ignored like their recent ECS ADIZ
If China had any claim to these territories then they would take it to international court,
http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1437621/philippines-rejects-china-deal-disputed-shoal-china-denies-making-any
in fact they a hell bent on not doing so because they have no legal claim to these disputed territories. They are just in the process of trying to intimidate smaller countries into conceding them.
Exocet
March 26, 2014 at 19:34
“because doing so would violate first claim first own, the basic law of territory”
by that logic the Senkaku’s are defiantly part of Japan because China never claimed them, both the ming and qing never recognized them as part of China. Japan did after the island was declared Terra Nullius in accordance with international law, they even put a factory and accompanying village on the island.
The islands were even called Senkaku and drawn as part of Japan on Chinese all the old maps.
bibotsky
March 26, 2014 at 22:32
You do not seem to be clear on the issues on the south China sea. Please listen and look at the
lawyers disussion:
lawyers disussion:
brunt
March 26, 2014 at 23:29
To be fair to this very selective group, I have listen to part of it and could not continue because:
1. the basic fact isn’t there;
2. it would be a miracle to convince 1.5 billion people using this presentation.
2. it would be a miracle to convince 1.5 billion people using this presentation.
China’s claim of the 9-dashed line is long before “a few years ago”, it was openly published in 1947;
China’s claim didn’t violate any PH EEZ since there was no EEZ at all back in 1947;
China claimed water, PH claimed too, but the difference is that the ratio of 9-dashed line contained water to mainkland China is less than 10%, while the ratio of Sulu Sea to mainland PH is over 200%.
If you consider that there are 1.5 billion people who have been using the South China Sea for living for thousand years, it will understand the meaning of the 9-line claim to Chinese: it is life line.
UNCLOS respects historical title and traditional fishing right.
brunt
March 26, 2014 at 08:06
At the end of WW2, Japan abandoned all illegaly occupied Islands in Spratlys. China claimed all of them in the format of 11-dashed line, in 1947, by ROC.
In 1958, PRC repeated the same claim in a new format of the 9-dashed line claim. During the 10 years of time, PH and Vietnam and other nations did not protest, meaning all consider the South China Sea being outside of their territory.
In 1958, PRC repeated the same claim in a new format of the 9-dashed line claim. During the 10 years of time, PH and Vietnam and other nations did not protest, meaning all consider the South China Sea being outside of their territory.
EEZ only came into exist since 1982, 35 years later than the original 11-line claim. EEZ isn’t unconditional, it has limit, it has to respect already existed treaties and historical titles. In fact, PH EEZ in South China Sea doesn’t exixt because of the dispute with China, let alone 200 nm area hyped by the current PH govt.
UNCLOS does respect historical titles, does recognize traditional fidhing right. China has 1.5 billion people and vast territories. South China Sea is her traditional fishing ground, very well documented.
Ivan
March 26, 2014 at 12:00
UNCLOS require claims of open sea be based on recognized land features, not an arbitrarily drawn line with no reference to land features.
I am afraid you are making a rather poor case for the PRC.
If the PRC is so confident in their case, they should magnanimously as a great power of the region, let UNCLOS be the basis to adjudicate the claim.
PRC elected to not follow this course.
As for the ROC claims, that opens another can of worms as ROC presently claims China to include Mongolia, large swaths of India, etc.
Do you really want to base a claim on ROC maps?
If so, that also raises issues of successor state obligations that the PRC has not fulfilled.
brunt
March 26, 2014 at 13:59
Please be thoughtful.
When China made the claim, there was no UNCLOS. You can’t apply current law to the past.
Besides, PH made the claim of Sulu Sea, it is the same arbitrary manner, not based on land features.
Last, China’s claim is based on land features: it containes all Islands and reefs and shoals that discovered by Chinese many thousand years ago, let alone the claim covers also Chinese traditional fishing ground for billion people which is also discussed in UNCLOS.
EEZ based on land feature is only one of many factors in the UNCLOS. The definition itself is arbitrary, not even fair.
When China made the claim, there was no UNCLOS. You can’t apply current law to the past.
Besides, PH made the claim of Sulu Sea, it is the same arbitrary manner, not based on land features.
Last, China’s claim is based on land features: it containes all Islands and reefs and shoals that discovered by Chinese many thousand years ago, let alone the claim covers also Chinese traditional fishing ground for billion people which is also discussed in UNCLOS.
EEZ based on land feature is only one of many factors in the UNCLOS. The definition itself is arbitrary, not even fair.
JL
March 26, 2014 at 16:57
Go and check with facts, The Qin was a small feudal state in China 2,000+ ago. Tibet was a nation of its own, Ughuri was a nation of its own. Yunnan, Hainan, Guangxi, and Guangdong were belong to Vietnam, never mind about West Philippines Sea. China does not has any sovereignty over Tibet, Ughuri, Inner Mongolia, Manchuria, Yunnan, Guangxi, Guangdong, and Hainan, never mind about Paracel islands which china robbed from Vietnam in 1974 and some Spartly islands in 1988 afterward from Vietnam and Philippines. Chinese need to learn real history and not from fabricated stuffs.
A Chinese
March 26, 2014 at 23:24
The real history, Vietnam is a renegade province of China, and Philippines is an European imperialist created artifact, the indigenous nation is Sulu Kingdom, the Philippines need to be removed and Sulu Kingdom needs to be reinstalled just like Ryukyu Kingdom and Hawaii Kingdom need to be freed for their independence.
brunt
March 26, 2014 at 07:49
To put coordinates to the 9-dashed line isn’t a problem, it can be done accurately in less than one day.
However to discredit the 9-dashed line claim simply because that it is not as accurate as 4 or 5 digit numbers is misguided calculation. China is not the first one to claim so called open water. The Philippines claimed Sulu Sea long before China and was recognized by the United States. US herself claimed open water back in 1945. China’s 9-dashed line claim satisfies three characteristics of customary international law: repetition, practice, and the opinion of law.
As for UNCLOS, EEZ never is allowed to claim territory, let alone to claim already claimed territory. The dispute between PH and China all are within China’s claimed territory, outside of PH claimed territory defined by her treaties and constitution. As for Vietnam, she was the first one to recognize Chinese 9-dashed line claim, as early as in 1958.
Who is aggressive, who is trying to change status quo and who is making troubles is so obvious.
Ivan
March 26, 2014 at 07:37
I begin by saluting Dr. Kenneth Lieberthal’s lifetime achievements in bringing understanding and sympathy to the Chinese civilization that smoothed over many things that could have brought about conflict and perhaps even war over the decades.
But sadly, his view is increasingly obsolete. The PRC-Beijing-CCP point of view that is pictured by Dr Lieberthal, is glossing over the incredible changes that have happened in China over the past decade.
What has happened is the gradual dissolution of the PRC-Beijing regime in a process that is best described as a reversion to mean after PRC-Beijing Nationalism peaked in the 1970s.
Everywhere one look throughout China, is the subtle, quiet, and unstoppable momentum in the revival of local languages, culture, customs, and ideas. And fierce resistance to any attempt by PRC-Beijing to exert their central authority on the local authorities.
Sure, PRC can still appoint and remove at will the top officials of each local government, but just about every “local” government below the top level are made up of locals who will serve out their entire careers and lifetimes in that locality — with little hope or prospect of mobility within the PRC to a different government either upwards or sideways.
Local officials have amassed enormous power that is not diminishing, but growing exponentially with the spread of modern communications and high tech in general.
By contrast, the power of the central government, no matter what it tried to leverage it with technology, is diminishing by the hour and minute. Diktats from the PRC-CCP that use to carry fears of immediate death for failing to obey are now treated hardly any different from Imperial diktats that once ended with “now tremble and obey”.
Old line Sinologists, like Dr. Kenneth Lieberthal, who are secure in their place as the “China handlers” with their extensive contacts in PRC-Beijing with their high level contacts in the PRC Ministries, their powerful friends in Shanghai and so on, have largely missed this phenomena that is obvious to anyone at ground level.
The phenomena of revival of local culture and autonomy is no less dramatic than in places like Taiwan and Hongkong, EXCEPT that within the PRC, there is an unwillingness to stick their neck out by doing it “in your face” to the PRC-CCP, preferring to doing it subtly and quietly by other means.
Aspiring Sinologists that want to understand this phenomena is advised to drop the well trodden pathways to the major cities like Shanghai, Beijing, and focus on the smaller, 2nd and 3rd tier cities in the areas where there is less fears and worries by Beijing of rebellion (like Tibet and Xianjian), and go there to see for themselves.
Spend time with the local governments, especially those at the local local level (not provincial top leaders), and listen to the voices of the people around them.
They will discover a different set of worlds, the real China that is now bubbled up from the facade of the fiction of modern Chinese Nationalism expressed by the PRC-CCP in Beijing.
The sign on the front door may still say PRC-CCP, the flag and logo still say PRC, but the real China, its heart and soul, are now quietly evolving back to normal.
Enjoy.
Tteng
March 26, 2014 at 15:33
Ivan,
I just don’t get you about ‘China revert back to norm’ point.
1. When you said ‘local language’, I taken you mean local dialect. Sure, Shanghainese and Cantonese are mutually unintelligible to each ear, but all Chinese ( at least according to CIA, 93% of) speaks Putonghua, the national language. As for written script, Han-script (either traditional or simplified) is uniform (and interchangeable) through out China and its ethnic diaspora; there is no other written form of ‘Chinese’.
2. As for ‘increasing divergence’ of China, you are not looking at the trend. First, there is the 480M netizens which guarantees the rapidity and spread of news and information. Second, you must be aware of the yearly Chinese New Year internal migration- over 1/3 of Chinese population are on the road; that means 400M Chinese brought their ‘locality’ to the city, and vise verse when they visited their home towns. So, you’ve got both information and population movement, a perfect blender to homogenize the broad land and its people.
3. Warlording, you say. Well, it can only happen if an ambitious military/political person stays in one place long enough to build up a following; which does not happen under CCP system. Take BXL for example, he got top billing as mayor of Dalian, then he was transferred to Chungking, where he screwed up. He was never in one place long enough to pose a challenge to the central leadership. Same goes with all CCP leadership (both mil and civilian), it is up-or-out-and-transfer every ~5 years.
Any other question?
michaelturton
March 26, 2014 at 07:15
Lieberthal works for Stonebridge, a consulting firm that does a rousing business with China. Is that made clear in these vids?
Ivan
March 26, 2014 at 11:55
I rather not dismiss Dr Lieberthal just because he has business interests with China, just as Dr Kissinger have business interest worldwide do not necessarily undermine his ability to speak truth and illuminate an issue even if it might conflict with his personal interests.
In other words, we know the issue with the potential, or appearance of conflicts of interest, but lets give him a fair hearing.
NEWSLETTER
Sign up for our weekly newsletter
The Diplomat Brief
POPULAR STORIES
- TOPICS
- Blogs
- Diplomacy
- Economy
- Environment
- Features
- Interviews
- Photo Essays
- Podcasts
- Politics
- Security
- Society
- Videos
- BLOGS
- James Holmes
- China Power
- Flashpoints
- Zachary Keck
- ASEAN Beat
- The Pulse
- Pacific Money
- Asia Life
- The Editor
- ARCHIVES
- Sport & Culture
- Indian Decade
- A New Japan
- New Leaders Forum
- New Emissary
- Tokyo Notes
- APAC Insider
- Asia Scope
- China, What's Next?
- Tech Biz
- THE DIPLOMAT
- About Us
- Partners
- Advertise
- Syndication
- Privacy Policy
- Contact Us
© 2014 The Diplomat. All Rights Reserved.
- Related Searches:
- Diplomat Motel Alice Springs
- Diplomatic Hotel Mendoza
- Diplomat Cooker Repairs
- Hotel Diplomat Rajecke Teplice
- Hotels Bucharest
- Country Club Furniture
- Diplomat Hotel Hollywood FL
- Diplomat Refrigerator
- Diplomat Watch Winders
- WWW Westin Diplomat Jobs
- Diplomat Oven Parts
- Diplomat Dishwasher Spares
- Diplomat Florence
- Diplomat Washing Machines
- Diplomat Dører
- Hotel Diplomat Buenos Aires
Share your thoughts