Andrew, on October 20, 2021, made more interesting comments:
By coincidence, I watched a documentary on how Beijing's attempt to ban or raise tariffs on Australian goods has either failed to hurt Australia economically, or has, in fact, hurt China. China's power shortages after China banned Australian coal imports, in December 2020, is a major case in point. Apparently, Australia's coal is high quality and cheap, while Chinese domestically mined coal is low quality and expensive, and there are different types of generators which burn high quality vs low quality coal.
In the absence of Australian coal imports China’s power companies need to buy expensive coal, which doesn't burn very well. The CCP laws keep electricity prices low, so burning more coal means greater losses for China’s power companies. Hence the power shortages in China since the station owners can't afford the turn the power plants on.
Australia has found other coal markets, like India, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. But it seems China has been buying Australian coal from them. China is therefore paying higher prices for coal that still ultimately comes from Australia.
Australia also supplies a substantial portion of China's iron needs. The next largest supplier is well behind Australia.
So, Australia would be able to hurt China by stopping its mineral and agricultural exports to China. And if the US and others blockade oil, I think China would be in for a world of short term hurt, and even more in the medium term.
I don't think liquid natural gas (LNG) would be able to compensate for the fact that nearly 70% of China’s electricity needs comes from coal fired plants, not LNG.
Pete Comments
Bad news for China that China's attempted trade coercion of Australia has had so many downsides (especially regarding coal) for China.
Your observation: "Australia has found other coal markets, like India, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. But it seems China has been buying Australian coal from them. China is therefore paying higher prices for coal that still ultimately comes from Australia." is especially significant.
Another observation: "So, Australia would be able to hurt China by stopping its mineral and agricultural exports to China. And if the US and others blockade oil, I think China would be in for a world of short term hurt, and even more in the medium term." may be a worry.
One recalls impending energy shortages for Japan in 1941 leading to Pearl Harbour and Japanese invasions south. If similar shortages were aimed at China now might China be drawn closer to energy rich Russia or carry out violent actions?
9 comments:
There may be a lesson here:
If China attacks Taiwan, An "world" embargo/blockade, enforced at Malacca straits, Suez, etc. may be a relatively peaceful way to deter China, if Taiwan can sustain resistance for long enough. This may take well over a year, and the embargo may be leaking at the Russian border.
This would need to be prepared well ahead of time, and substitutes for critical imports from China would also present difficulties.
Blockade would need to start once war is likely, so as to prevent becoming a cause of war in itself.
Like all deterrents, it is best if this is so overwhelming as not to have to be used. But even if it does, it's better than a hotter war between nuclear powers.
A new 'Quad' seems to be taking shape in the Middle-East, with Israel & UAE joining the common core of US & India (from the Indo-Pacific Quad). The Foreign Ministers/Secretary of State equivalents of the countries held a part-virtual, part-in person summit few days ago, a year after the historic 'Abraham Accords'.
I can only speculate as to the US perspective in this, the others will work with it if they see common cause:
1) Keep strategic Chinese investments & facilities out of Israel & UAE/GCC (like the terminal at Port of Haifa owned by CCP that's causing heartburn in DC)
2) Keep China from supplanting the US' role as the main external backer (strategically & financially) of Israel
3) Keep India from dependence on Iranian crude by substituting it permanently with GCC supply, probably making the current costly endeavor a bit dearer.
Beyond that they could be seeking to create a common platform for controlling several emerging tech regulatory functions, keeping out Chinese 5G (and in future probably Chinese AI) etc like what the other Quad is doing now.
A good analysis of the development & some perspective from The Print:
https://theprint.in/opinion/global-print/why-us-and-india-are-taking-on-china-with-a-middle-eastern-quad/752775/
This also needs to be looked at through the lens of the proposed Arab-Mediterranean Trade Corridor proposed by India some years ago, but until the Abraham Accords were signed, it didn't seem practical - but now it seems to be the most pragmatic thing around.
https://www.isas.nus.edu.sg/papers/...gm-shift-in-strategic-connectivity-to-europe/
https://twitter.com/michaeltanchum/status/1432982061632172033
Beautifully summarized in detail by geopolitics Youtube channel Caspian Report in this video, the corridor in question is covered from 8:35 onward:
https://youtu.be/QDHgUMt5MF8
Hi Anonymous
Your idea of a ""world" embargo/blockade, enforced at Malacca straits, Suez, etc. may be a relatively peaceful way to deter China"
is ludicrous.
If you've been reading https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2021/10/russia-siding-with-china-over-taiwan.html you should have noticed
Russia supplies China with very large quantities of oil and gas via pipelines crossing their LAND BORDER.
Are you suggesting the US should "blockade" (ie. sever) these Russia-Chinese pipelines by using USAF bombers or long range missiles?
This would draw Russia into an alliance with China for a World War Three against the US.
Here's some further reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Siberia%E2%80%93Pacific_Ocean_oil_pipeline
eg: "In June 2009, Russia and China signed a deal to build the spur pipeline to China by which Russia supplies China with 15 million tonnes of oil (300,000 barrels per day"
Thanks Gessler
For presenting this new Middle East Quad (that includes Israel) idea to readers.
It is a very new initiative being floated.
Like many diplomatic iniatives, partly hoping for peaceful acceptance of Israel in the Middle East, there may be more Hope (in Hebrew "Hatikvah") than likelihood of lasting success.
I'll have a think whether I should make an article out of that Quad idea so early.
Regards
Pete
Hi Pete:
Re [Oct 22, 2021, 1:42:00 PM]
The quotes around "world" were to indicate that some countries, such as Russia, would be unlikely to participate in the embago/blockade. (Also note that I wrote that the embargo is likely to leak at Russian border.)
It would be impossible to completely block oil, coal and other minerals to China, or even seriously hinder its war power. On the other hand, disruption of the Chinese economy is probably quite possible. The embargo would block more Chinese exports than imports: China is an export economy. This while casualties accumulate over time in the Taiwan straits. The purpose would be to destabilize the Xi Jinping regime, preferably without AUKUS engaging in too hot a war. (This would take some time, hence the hope that Taiwan can hold out for long enough.)
Obviously USAF attacking China/Russia pipeline and rail lines is out of the question. Secondary boycotts of Russian businesses would be more plausible but still difficult, given the EU's dependence on Russian energy. (As well as Russian shenanigans in the Ukraine...)
This is the lest bad option I can think of. (Appeasing China by abandoning Taiwan would only postpone the crisis.) I would love to see better options.
I hope this clarifies my previous note a bit. Maybe you can demote me to only "slightly ridiculous" ;-)
Hi again Anonymous [at Oct 22, 2021, 4:26:00 PM]
OK. I promote your next idea to a tad less ludicrous.
Methinks attempting to strangle China economically
At the same time wrecking the economies of China's major trade partners eg. the EU, Russia, India, South Korea, the US of A and even Australia.
Meanwhile your visions of attempting Regime Change of China when even the US attempting Regime Change in tiddly Iraq and Afghanistan FAILED.
May look like typical American (Republican) Cowboy "diplomacy".
Maybe pushed by a Kissingeresque Strangelove-ean clone with visions of a Brave New World -
Not for "the Russkies" as depicted in this Classified Training Film https://youtu.be/A9ihKq34Ozc
But for the Chinese!
It couldn't be worse - than this https://youtu.be/snTaSJk0n_Y?t=1m30s
Cheers and Have a good weekend
Pete
We must keep in mind that China is a massive raw material consumer, it is a machine that must be fed continuously otherwise the machine grinds to a halt. the same must be said about that machine being capable of exporting across the globe. Any failure to supply reduces foreign investment. If the those supply mechanisms are restrained in China foreign business in China "WILL" relocate to places like Vietnam. The greatest threat to China, is a dwindling GDP.
We can sit and tremble on the size of the CCPs war machine, but the real threat to Xi Jinping is from within. A typical example was when China saw the humble sparrow as a threat to wheat production. China saw that if they eradicated the Sparrow then a 1% gain in food production could be achieved. The eradication program drove Sparrow numbers to the brink. 'How Clever',one would say, but that Gung Ho approach had the opposite effect.
The CCP failed to realise that removing the Sparrow numbers would cause crop insect infestations that would go on to cause famine.
it is disappointing to find the CCP hasn't learnt the lesson of opposite reactions.
We to should learn that trade is the Ultimate "WEAPON OF CHOICE", while Flood, Drought and natural calamity is just a bigger threat to China than foreign military hardware.
This is but the tip of the iceberg, no one has really factored in that if China doesn't reduce its emissions then that "TRADE BOGEYMAN" will really cause an even bigger problem than coal or wheat or iron ore.
Hi Lee
Yes, I think China's Mismanagement unintended consequences, like:
- air and water pollution
- urbanisation diminishing food producing arable area
- PRC work practices that dissuade potential mothers from having kids, together with
- the one-child policy that medium-term has meant too many old people compared to too few of working age
may tumble CCP Rule before military reactions by Russia or the West do.
Hi Gessler
I'll turn your Mid-East Quad comment (of Oct 22, 2021, 3:09:00 AM) into an article, early next week.
Regards
Pete
Post a Comment