I'm just starting to read Kissingers new book "On China"
Gonna be interesting to read about his ideas, views...
Will keep you posted (it's only 500 pages :rolleyes:)
Went over 10k characters, no time for a civilized edit...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ray
Pakistan is in the Third World. They have no illusion that China has stood by Pakistan even when morally it was incorrect to do. The two new nuclear plants for Pakistan is a case in point which has not gone totally as per the protocol necessary for establishment of nuclear plants and non proliferation IIRC.
Observe Myanmar. They have found China to be a reliable ally, who has stood by its side through thick and thin, as has Pakistan. Therefore, it would be incorrect a surmise that none in the Third World finds China not a reliable ally. And neither is playing America against China!
Myanmar hasn't the option of playing the US against China, but I don't think anyone in Myanmar is foolish enough to think China will be at their side "through thick and thin". China will support them as long as and to the extent that they perceive that support to be in their interest. They will dump Myanmar like a hot potato if they see it as in their interest to do so... and everyone knows it. Not like the regime in Myanmar has a lot of options for foreign support.
Pakistan certainly plays the US, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and anyone else they can off against each other. They've done it for a long time.
I don't see that what is "morally incorrect" has anything to do with this at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ray
I am sure the US nor Philippines want a war before their Defence Pact is put to test.
A defense pact by definition can't be put to the test unless there's something to defend against. Since the pact does not obligate the US to support the Philippines in fights over disputed territory (the Philippines has long-running disputes with China and Malaysia), any such support would be unrelated to that pact in any event.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ray
The US troops, missiles etc were positioned all around Europe during the Cold War. By the logic given, the US should have waited for a War with the USSR before putting its Pact to test.
One has to understand what is meant by 'a threat in being'.
I understand that some are assuming a "threat in being". I'm less convinced that the assumption is valid. Piling troops and missiles into SE Asia would I think be completely counterproductive, even if you could find SEA countries willing to host them, which is most unlikely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ray
How does a prosperous, growing China help?
Already China is already rocking the US boat.
I don't see any US boats being rocked. Little ripples in a very big pond, yes, but no US boats rocking. A prosperous, growing China, economically integrated with the world and dependent on trade, has a lot more to lose than an isolated, "contained" China.
If the US, or for that matter ASEAN, really wanted to show anger at Chinese aggressiveness economic moves aimed at China's exports would be way more effective than saber-rattling that everyone knows will go nowhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ray
It maybe true that US posturing would close ranks in China, but it will also give hope to many who are 'oppressed'.
Are you so sure of that? Even oppressed people will rally behind their government if they perceive disrespect or bullying or threat from the outside, and nationalism is strong in China even among those who detest their government. Has it not always been so? Have not governments threatened with domestic discontent always tried to direct that outside, even if an "enemy" has to be fabricated? Why make that easier for them?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ray
I maybe wrong, but the encouragement being given to China to convert rapidly to capitalism is a good ploy to encourage a greater divide between the 'haves' and 'have nots' and the 'rural' and 'urban' divide. It is already creating problems in China. Recently we had the riots in Inner Mongolia and now the latest being the unrest in Zengcheng in Guangdong province.
I don't think US encouragement was a significant driver of China's conversion to capitalism... but yes, they are well and truly riding the dragon now, and it's going to be an interesting ride. Never forget that the greatest concerns of China's leaders, and the threats they most fear, are internal, not external. Americans sailing carriers around is a lot less scary to them than the prospect of losing a major export market, having to shut down factories, and suddenly seeing a bunch of angry citizens in the streets... not out in the rural fringe but in the coastal heartland. They know exactly how fast that can spiral out of control.
The Chinese leaders know very well that they sit on a huge real estate bubble. They know their banks are carrying gargantuan amounts of crony loans backed by vaporous assets, if they are backed by anything. Americans may not ask how fast the percentage of Chinese growth driven by speculative, rather than productive, activity has grown, but Chinese leaders know.
Aggressive behaviour is often a sign of fear... and we shouldn't assume that American military force is what is feared.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ray
In short, it is essential to encourage the external dynamics with the internal dynamics to ensure a 'healthy' balance where China prospers but is not in a position to 'threaten'.
Who exactly is supposed to "ensure a "healthy" balance"? I don't think the US is in a position to do so, or to complain that China should not be in a position to threaten anyone. Should the US surrender their capacity to threaten? If they do not, why should they complain about others having a small fraction of that capacity?