China's Emergence as a Superpower (till 2014)

[Ray]

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.

Myanmar has been supported for a real real long long time by China.

Do show one instance, China has dropped a 'friend' like a hot potato! They have not even dropped such a rogue state as North Korea!

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.

Pakistan does not play anyone one against anyone.

They merely squeeze all with good blackmail!

I don't see that what is "morally incorrect" has anything to do with this at all.

You don't?

Circumventing Nuclear non Proliferation is correct, right?

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.

A defence pact is not merely activated when attacked.

It is activated when there is 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.

I presume the US was spooked with the Russian missiles in Cuba and they overreacted to bring the world to the brink of a nuclear war?!!

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.

Oceans have their origin in small springs!

Little ripples cause tsunamis.

The world has little too lose except shoddy cheap products.

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.

Since when has economic moves been productive.

How many economic sanctions have worked.

How come Myanmar still survives?

The real world is much different from the emotional one!

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?

Ask Poland.

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.

You may know more of China than me. So what made China chose capitalism and which companies from which country made a beeline post haste to the Chinese shores?

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.

The Chinese leaders know so much that there is desertification, droughts, starvation and now diverting waters up North without it being thought through!

Aggressive behaviour is often a sign of fear... and we shouldn't assume that American military force is what is feared.

Hardly a reason to lose one's balance.

I would be surprised if one does not fear the US military might.

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?

Healthy balance means allow prosperity, but contain military aggressiveness.