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.

[slapout9]

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?

Ray, I am not sure they have chosen Capitalism, other than the the fact we(USA) are just useful idiots to them. Their economy is organized much more along the lines Marxism(not Communism there is a differance) than it is Capitalism.

[Backwards Observer]

Interesting opinion on Marx by Erich Fromm:

It is hardly possible to talk about Marx's attitude toward religion without mentioning the connection between his philosophy of history, and of socialism, with the Messianic hope of the Old Testament prophets and the spiritual roots of humanism in Greek and Roman thinking. The Messianic hope is, indeed, a feature unique in Occidental thought. The prophets of the Old Testament are not only, like Lao Tzu or Buddha, spiritual leaders; they are also political leaders. They show man a vision of how he ought to be, and confront him with the alternatives between which he must choose. Most of the Old Testament prophets share the idea that history has a meaning, that man perfects himself in the process of history, and that he will eventually create a social order of peace and justice. But peace and justice for the prophets do not mean the absence of war and the absence of injustice. Peace and justice are concepts which are rooted in the whole of the Old Testament concept of man. Man, before he has consciousness of himself, that is, before he is human, lives in unity with nature ( Adam and Eve in Paradise). The first act of Freedom, which is the capacity to say "no," opens his eyes, and he sees himself as a stranger in the world, beset by conflicts with nature, between man and man, between man and woman.

Marx's Concept of Socialism (1961) - marxists.org

***

Erich Seligmann[1] Fromm (March 23, 1900 – March 18, 1980) was a German-American Jewish social psychologist, psychoanalyst, humanistic philosopher, and democratic socialist. He was associated with what became known as the Frankfurt School of critical theory.

[...]

The cornerstone of Fromm's humanistic philosophy is his interpretation of the biblical story of Adam and Eve's exile from the Garden of Eden. Drawing on his knowledge of the Talmud, Fromm pointed out that being able to distinguish between good and evil is generally considered to be a virtue, and that biblical scholars generally consider Adam and Eve to have sinned by disobeying God and eating from the Tree of Knowledge. However, departing from traditional religious orthodoxy, Fromm extolled the virtues of humans taking independent action and using reason to establish moral values rather than adhering to authoritarian moral values.

Beyond a simple condemnation of authoritarian value systems, Fromm used the story of Adam and Eve as an allegorical explanation for human biological evolution and existential angst, asserting that when Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge, they became aware of themselves as being separate from nature while still being part of it. This is why they felt "naked" and "ashamed": they had evolved into human beings, conscious of themselves, their own mortality, and their powerlessness before the forces of nature and society, and no longer united with the universe as they were in their instinctive, pre-human existence as animals. According to Fromm, the awareness of a disunited human existence is a source of guilt and shame, and the solution to this existential dichotomy is found in the development of one's uniquely human powers of love and reason. However, Fromm distinguished his concept of love from unreflective popular notions as well as Freudian paradoxical love (see criticism by Marcuse below).

Erich Fromm - Wikipedia

[Dayuhan]

Basing actions upon your read of somebody else's intentions or motivations lacking any evidence is unwise. That is why you base your actions upon what they are capable of doing, will be capable of doing and what they are actually doing at the moment. The Chinese are building a big navy that will be capable of doing a lot. They are currently acting aggressively toward several nations that really pose no threat at all to them. From that evidence, I believe it is wise to conclude they are up to something. They are building a big navy and they have been shoving others around, those are facts not assumptions.

They really have been acting that aggressively. The "yea, but what about what we did in (select the historical event you like the most)" argument is a distraction. It has nothing to do with what the Chinese naval forces are doing now and what it might mean in the future. Sometimes when a pot calls a kettle black it is black and you should note that when planning your kitchen decor.

You mention the Chinese have to keep themselves from being closed out of the South China sea. When have they EVER been threatened with being closed out of the South China sea? There is no threat there. If they aren't responding to a threat, and they're not, it is logical to assume they are building up to make a threat.

Do you not see the inconsistency there?

Assume that the Chinese are looking at us exactly the same way that you want us to look at them. We have a very large navy, bigger than theirs by orders of magnitude. We have a tradition of pushing people around whenever it suits us to do so... how many people and countries have been pushed around by the US in the last 50 years, and how many have been pushed around by China? Why would they not see us as a threat, and why would they not beef up force and try to mark out territory - sort of the international equivalent of a dog pissing on trees - in response to that perceived threat? How do you think Americans would react if China declared that they had critical economic interests in the Gulf of Mexico, and was the dominant naval power there?

It is no comfort to me when you say they will gin up something abroad to distract the people from troubles at home. That is a scary thing to contemplate when they are building up the navy and air force and shoving around little countries. That kind of thing tends to get out of hand, because of...emotions, which was the point I made many posts ago. Any conflict in the western Pacific makes no economic sense for anybody, but emotions tend to drive things where they shouldn't go, as I said before. There is no rational, externally driven reason for the Chinese to be doing what they are doing now and it concerns me.

You seem to be treating the current developments as something new. They aren't. This has been going on periodically for decades, and I see now reason to treat it any differently now than we have before. Ignoring it is a mistake, but blowing it out of proportion and treating it as a sign of imminent aggression is an equal mistake. Taking it too seriously, and showing too much concern, is as big a mistake as showing too little.

Again, we have to recall that what the primary disincentive to actual Chinese aggression (as opposed to jockeying for position on the periphery) is not US military force, but the likelihood that conflict would bring significant economic disruption, which the Chinese regime would probably not survive. Of course if that disruption occurs anyway, which is likely, a lot of things could happen, including an anti-capitalist backlash and a takeover by much more aggressive factions. Undermining the Chinese government is really not in our interest, given the likely alternative.

There is no need for the mainland to make an opposed landing on Taiwan to take the island. If we cut the Taiwanese loose they would have to capitulate.

Why?

Nobody's talking about "cutting the Taiwanese loose" anyway, so I don't see much point in hypothesizing over it. It's not an all-or-nothing situation, and shouldn't be; the degree of commitment and the level of visible action that's required or useful at any given point has to be assessed as the situation evolves.

I think personal ambition can trump actions that are good for the country, and a conquest or two is really good for a guy's cv, especially if it helps distract the populace from internal woes. Chasing the Viets and the Filipinos out of the South China sea and having the U.S. Navy stand idly by while they did it would be quite a feather in somebody's cap. I believe, judging by their actions, that has dawned on some of them and they are willing to chance it for personal gain. If they were able to pull it off, it is that much more likely they would try it again.

Again, I think you're overstating what's going on. It's nothing new, it's usually followed by rounds of negotiation and a whole lot of statements, then everyone goes home and stays clam a while until the whole thing flares again. Nobody's achieved a conquest or a great victory; it's just one more step in the process of jockeying around the periphery and seeing what can be gotten away with without significant economic repercussions.

I think we have something to be concerned about.

We always have something to be concerned about. That's cause for concern, not panic or hysteria, and responses have to be based on realistic assessments of problems and goals.

[Backwards Observer]

Economist Book review of, Does the Elephant Dance? Contemporary Indian Foreign Policy by David M. Malone:

ONE day India will be a great power. Its demography, nukes and growing economy make that almost inevitable. Outsiders, especially in the West, promote its heft so it can serve as an emerging rival to China.

[...]

Yet, as David Malone clearly sets out in his brisk survey of its foreign policy, there is a long way to go before the Indian elephant is really dancing. Its international policy is still mostly reactive, incremental and without any grand vision. Its few diplomats are good, but terribly overstretched. The world’s biggest democracy is coy to the point of feebleness in promoting its values abroad. And its big but ill-equipped armed forces, perhaps the navy aside, trouble no military planners outside of South Asia.

It is easy to see why. India’s long history of being invaded, and its preoccupation with holding itself together as a viable, democratic state, have left it little scope for acting overseas. Indians, like Americans, can be insular, believing that their huge country is the centre of the world. Its few leaders who bothered seriously with foreign matters, notably Jawaharlal Nehru, the brilliant and charismatic first prime minister, fell into moralising about others’ wicked deeds and tried to avoid being embroiled in the cold war, but he did little to promote national interests.

Indian Foreign Policy: Hard Questions - The Economist - June 9, 2011.

[Ray]

Contentions
Asia Looks to America as a Buffer Against the Power of China

There is tremendous fear in the U.S. that we will soon be eclipsed by China. That fear helps to explain myriad otherwise inexplicable phenomena such as the stunning success of Amy Chua’s “Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother,” which suggests Chinese mothers have devised superior child-raising techniques soft American moms should emulate.

It is certainly legitimate to worry about China’s rise given how fast its economy is growing — along with its defense budget. But it is by no means inevitable that China will overtake us. There are still lots of obstacles in its path, ranging from chronic rural poverty to environmental degradation to — the biggest issue of all — the fundamental illegitimacy of its unelected government. Moreover, as China gets stronger, it also gets more assertive, and in the process alienates its neighbors, thereby driving them into our arms.

The latest evidence of this phenomenon is this Financial Times article: “Vietnam calls for U.S. aid in China spat.” .........

In that list is the makings of a potent alliance to hem in China and ensure that its rise really is “peaceful,”

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/20...ower-of-china/

US Reaffirms Asia Role

June 8, 2011

The United States’ medium- to long-term engagement throughout Asia, especially Southeast Asia, continues to be questioned by Asian nations. Clearly, the choices that the United States makes today have consequences for the future, as do the policies of Asian countries regarding the United States. Yet while many Asian nations obviously value the public goods and security commitments that the United States brings to Asia, questions remain over just how long the US can continue to do so.

At the Shangri-La dialogue held in Singapore at the weekend, US Defence Secretary Robert Gates outlined plans for more US cooperation throughout Southeast Asia. These initiatives range from deployment of US Littoral Combat Ships to Singapore as part of the US-Singapore Strategic Framework Agreement, to plans that include increased port calls, naval exercises, and multilateral cooperation with allies and partners throughout the region.........

The plethora of Asian states that welcome, and interact with, the United States military presence throughout Asia is impressive. Australia, Japan, South Korea, Thailand, the Philippines, India, Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia, New Zealand, Vietnam and even Mongolia all lookToday, things aren’t so clear, not least because China’s intentions for its role on the global stage, and more importantly for its military in the Asia-Pacific region, remain unclear. to increased US military presence and/or cooperation to quietly hedge against possible Chinese domination throughout the region........

Today, things aren’t so clear, not least because China’s intentions for its role on the global stage, and more importantly for its military in the Asia-Pacific region, remain unclear. ..........

In some ways, Chinese public diplomacy surrounding its ‘peaceful and harmonious’ rise is similar to this fairy tale. The evidence speaks for itself, with the South China Sea being the most explicit example. Vietnam and the Philippines have both accused China within the past few weeks of aggressive behaviour that violates their interests and which is against the spirit of the 2002 Declaration on the Code of Conduct on the South China Sea. Chinese claims over this waterway have persistently been a regional bone of contention, with no resolution yet in sight, but regional concern growing.

Other examples are tied to the lack of transparency over Chinese military programmes. .....

http://the-diplomat.com/new-leaders-...rms-asia-role/

On the issue of US pushing countries around, it is true that countries do grudge being pushed around by the US.

However, the choice is being pushed around by the US or being swallowed by China since they claim parts of the neighbourhood in most countries on the periphery and 'amicably' settle the boundaries!

There is also the issues of 'values'. US values are closer to the values of the countries in Asia (which have emerged from colonialism) than Mainland Chinese values (Communist).

[Ray]

Economist Book review of, Does the Elephant Dance? Contemporary Indian Foreign Policy by David M. Malone:

Indian Foreign Policy: Hard Questions - The Economist - June 9, 2011.

A good analysis.

ONE day India will be a great power.

Pragmatically seen, that day is too far away to even contemplate.

Let India first set her house in order first, and then we can think about it becoming a great power.

To be a great power, the foundations must be strong and not built on daydreams.

[Ray]

Tell me about it. 'Always the bridesmaid, never the bride'...or something.

The Chinese invasion, migrations, assimilations are too complex to know exactly.

The case, as some would say, the bridesmaid demanding that they are the real brides!!

Some claim that Hakka origin is from the Xiongnu nomadic people.

[Backwards Observer]

To be a great power, the foundations must be strong and not built on daydreams.

You mean Like a Shakuntala thing? I'm just kidding.

[Backwards Observer]

The case, as some would say, the bridesmaid demanding that they are the real brides!!

So you've met Hakka people before, I see. I want half! Also must give free gift! (Anecdote): I was at the hawker stalls with a relative and the noodle-seller lady started talking Hakka to us (which I don't speak). I asked my relative if the lady would give us a discount because we were all Hakka. He said, "You kidding? She'll charge us extra!" Maybe this is just Hakka humour, I don't know. Nee tung ai kong sen!

[Ray]

So you've met Hakka people before, I see. I want half! Also must give free gift! (Anecdote): I was at the hawker stalls with a relative and the noodle-seller lady started talking Hakka to us (which I don't speak). I asked my relative if the lady would give us a discount because we were all Hakka. He said, "You kidding? She'll charge us extra!" Maybe this is just Hakka humour, I don't know. Nee tung ai kong sen!

You should see this:

Watch this

You mean Like a Shakuntala thing? I'm just kidding.

[Backwards Observer]

You should see this:

Watch this

That's funny.

Example of Hakka bargaining:

Hakka: This one how much? $100? Hrm, I give you $40, also you give me (this other thing) free.

Shopkeep: Haiyah, cannot...cannot!

Hakka: Then don't want. (leaves)

[1 week later, same shop, same item.]

Hakka: I give you $42, but you also give me free (this other thing).

Shopkeep: Wah! No can...no can!

Hakka: Ok, $45 with free gift. Otherwise don't want.

Shopkeep: Too low. $88. Best price.

Hakka: Hmph. (leaves)

[3 weeks later, same shop...]

...you get the idea.

[JMA]

Undermining the Chinese government is really not in our interest, given the likely alternative.

The likely alternative? You have provided no evidence that what you state is the likely alternative. Can you?

[AdamG]

That's funny.

Example of Hakka bargaining:

Shopkeep: Too low. $88. Best price.

Hakka: Hmph. (leaves)

[3 weeks later, same shop...]

...you get the idea.

Hakka = Scots who eat more noodles than sheep.

[selil]

I don't have much to offer but this...

While in China last year half a dozen of my students were from Taiwan. The Chinese government was paying them a stipend and for their university education in full. They were very well treated.

I also saw one of the most gorgeous christian churches you could imagine on Dushu lake. Built for the expats and christian chinese.

FInal observation. It is all about the cranes. If you've ever traveled through south east China you know what I mean. The only thing more prevalent than cranes is television shows on the third kingdom.

[carl]

Do you not see the inconsistency there?

Assume that the Chinese are looking at us exactly the same way that you want us to look at them. We have a very large navy, bigger than theirs by orders of magnitude. We have a tradition of pushing people around whenever it suits us to do so... how many people and countries have been pushed around by the US in the last 50 years, and how many have been pushed around by China? Why would they not see us as a threat, and why would they not beef up force and try to mark out territory - sort of the international equivalent of a dog pissing on trees - in response to that perceived threat? How do you think Americans would react if China declared that they had critical economic interests in the Gulf of Mexico, and was the dominant naval power there?

Nope. I don't buy it. As I have said before, we have never threatened to blockade or deny access to any sea to the Chinese, even when they were shooting at us. That has not happened and will not happen, unless, unless the Chinese were to try something hard on another country in the area. Then we would. So why would they be concerned about maintaining access to the sea in the face of the U.S. Navy unless they wanted to maintain access if they did try something hard. There is no extant threat to them. I am concerned they are thinking there will be in a few years because of what they might be planning to do.

The reason the Taiwanese would have to capitulate if we cut them loose is apparent with just a quick glance at the map and a thought to the relative size of the PRC and Taiwan economies. Taiwan's independence is entirely dependent on sea power. If you ain't got it, the island is untenable. Without us, there is not sufficient sea power to counter that of the mainland, hence Taiwan would have to surrender. If they resisted, it would be suicide. They could be blockaded unto starvation and that would be it.

More later. Must go now.

[Dayuhan]

Nope. I don't buy it. As I have said before, we have never threatened to blockade or deny access to any sea to the Chinese, even when they were shooting at us. That has not happened and will not happen, unless, unless the Chinese were to try something hard on another country in the area. Then we would. So why would they be concerned about maintaining access to the sea in the face of the U.S. Navy unless they wanted to maintain access if they did try something hard. There is no extant threat to them. I am concerned they are thinking there will be in a few years because of what they might be planning to do.

What "will not happen" is not always clear to everyone. What we will not do may be as unclear to them as what they will do is unclear to us. What they know is that as of now we could shut their country down, top to bottom, in very little time and there's very little, if anything, they could do about it. That would reasonably make them nervous. Lots of other factors involved, of course, but we should never discount fear as a driver of aggressive behaviour, and it's worth working out what people are likely to be afraid of.

The reason the Taiwanese would have to capitulate if we cut them loose is apparent with just a quick glance at the map and a thought to the relative size of the PRC and Taiwan economies. Taiwan's independence is entirely dependent on sea power. If you ain't got it, the island is untenable. Without us, there is not sufficient sea power to counter that of the mainland, hence Taiwan would have to surrender. If they resisted, it would be suicide. They could be blockaded unto starvation and that would be it.

By that logic Cuba should have had to capitulate to the US the moment Russia cut them loose.

In any event, since nobody's seriously discussing cutting Taiwan loose and there's no immediate threat, it all seems like asking how many angels can foxtrot on a pinhead.

The likely alternative? You have provided no evidence that what you state is the likely alternative. Can you?

The likely alternative - or one likely alternative, if it sounds better - to a fall of China's current government would be a PLA takeover, with generals calling the shots instead of businessmen. That is not a certainty, of course: the future never is. There's even an outside long-shot chance that pro-democracy forces might prevail. But think about the possible consequences of a military takeover, and compare the strength of the PLA vs the pro-democracy forces... you want to place bets on that? The status quo is not ideal, but it's adequate. Given the potential for adverse unintended consequence, I wouldn't want to go rocking that boat at this point. It'll rock son enough of its own accord; the Chines economy is not nearly as strong as the uninformed make it out to be.

[Dayuhan]

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/20...ower-of-china/

Shouldn't be looking only at one side of the equation. Sure, countries like the Philippines will run to the US when China gets pushy on the periphery. They'll also quite happily cozy up to the Chinese if they feel like US military aid is les motivated than it was. They'll openly court Chinese investment and business links. It's simplistic to reduce this to "bad bully pushes little guys, who run to heroic big brother for protection". It's more about jostling for position, with everyone in the picture playing multiple games at the same time. We don't want to be pushed around, but we don't want to be played either, and overreacting will be as counterproductive as underreacting.

I have no problem at all with the US sailing a carrier through the China Sea, basing a couple of ships in Singapore, or holding an exercise. All part of the ritual, and generally expected. We should not delude ourselves into thinking that we're changing anything, or deterring anything, by doing that.

However, the choice is being pushed around by the US or being swallowed by China since they claim parts of the neighbourhood in most countries on the periphery and 'amicably' settle the boundaries

I don't see any reason to think that China wants to "swallow" the Philippines or Vietnam, which would be an expensive process with significant risk and little gain.

[Dayuhan]

If the US did not, do let us know what they committed themselves to with the Pact?

If you will forgive me, I will be very surprised if a Pact is area specific i.e. I will defend you only in Area A but not in Area B.

They committed to defend the Philippines against attack. The Spratly Islands are not part of the Philippines, they're disputed territory. The US position, as it typically is in such cases, is that it does not support or oppose any of the competing claims to disputed territory, but strongly supports a negotiated solution.

An aircraft carrier or a Fleet is positioned to take care of strategic interests in a certain geographical beat.

One has to assume because forewarned is forearmed.

The Chinese aircraft carrier is just the beginning.

Do let us know what is the Chinese intention with the single aircraft carrier since apparently you seem to know.

Presumably to defend Chinese interests. It would be silly of us to view that purely in light of China/US relations. China has numerous interests that do not involve us at all.

Forewarned is forearmed, but seeing a ghastly threat in anything anyone does is a rather timorous stance, and is likely to get one into trouble. Neither is chest-thumping bluster a terribly viable response anymore, it's likely to get us more of what we don't want.

The schedule is too close to reality to be believed!

Any links to show that it was schedule long time back?

They do it every year. It's not a big deal, never has been. The Chinese always protest. It'a a bit of a ritual dance and it's been ongoing for ages; mostly nobody notices. it is of course possible that the Chinese timed their incursions to coincide with the exercise; to make it look like they can jerk the chain and elicit a response. Hard to know for sure, but I wouldn't want to assign too much importance to it.

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!

North Korea serves their interests; why would they drop them? It is of course true that the Chinese perception of self-interest is more consistent and longer running than the American; consequence of different political systems. That doesn't mean that Chinese "friendships" are based on anything but perceived self-interest.

Pakistan does not play anyone one against anyone.

They merely squeeze all with good blackmail!

Seems to me that the Pakistanis are ever so quick to get friendly with the Chinese or Russians when hey want something out of the US or are irritated with the US. Don't you think Pakistan sees advantage in being courted by both the US and China, and plays that rivalry to their advantage? It would be strange if they didn't, no?

You don't?

Circumventing Nuclear non Proliferation is correct, right?

They don't care if it's correct or incorrect, they're only asking if it's in their interests. The morality of it doesn't matter at all. The US has poured billions into Pakistan, despite their role in proliferation, and has supported many "immoral" states over the years. Morality matters not at all in these equations.

A defence pact is not merely activated when attacked.

It is activated when there is a 'threat in being'.

A threat to the Philippines, or a threat to the Spratly Islands? Two different things.

The pact does not dictate what the response to any given threat or perceived threat must be. That has to be determined at the time of the perceived threat, based on assessment of the perceived threat.

Oceans have their origin in small springs!

Little ripples cause tsunamis.

Earthquakes cause tsunamis.

The world has little too lose except shoddy cheap products.

Little to lose from what? Are you proposing to detach China from the world?

I wouldn't lock China into the "cheap shoddy products" niche. Lots of countries have held that spot and moved out of it, and the Chinese are moving through it rather quickly.

Since when has economic moves been productive.

How many economic sanctions have worked.

How come Myanmar still survives?

Imposing economic sanctions on Myanmar is like banning a corpse from the dance floor. They have no economy worthy of the name, so the impact is minimal. An economy completely dependent on industrial exports and energy imports, requiring continuous growth to prevent popular unrest, is another animal completely.

You may know more of China than me. So what made China chose capitalism

Survival. The socialist ship was sinking and everyone could see it.

...and which companies from which country made a beeline post haste to the Chinese shores?

Many companies from many countries. Potential profit draws companies.

[/QUOTE]Healthy balance means allow prosperity, but contain military aggressiveness.[/QUOTE]

The US is not in a position to allow, disallow, or assure anyone's prosperity, and "containment" has to be scaled to the level of the threat, not the maximum extension of where a perceived threat might possibly lead under the worst possible circumstances.

[carl]

What "will not happen" is not always clear to everyone. What we will not do may be as unclear to them as what they will do is unclear to us. What they know is that as of now we could shut their country down, top to bottom, in very little time and there's very little, if anything, they could do about it. That would reasonably make them nervous. Lots of other factors involved, of course, but we should never discount fear as a driver of aggressive behaviour, and it's worth working out what people are likely to be afraid of.

I suppose the history of the world since the end of the Second World War and the uses to which and not to which American sea power have been put may be unclear to them. I think not. I think it is perfectly clear to them as it is to everybody else out there. We ain't going to bother you if you don't bother us or our buddies. Which leads us back to the beginning, the only reason they could have for building up is if they have a thought of maybe bothering us or our buddies.

The crux of this disagreement is you trust them to act rationally and weigh the costs. I suspect they are motivated by emotion and the cost isn't that important.

By that logic Cuba should have had to capitulate to the US the moment Russia cut them loose.

In any event, since nobody's seriously discussing cutting Taiwan loose and there's no immediate threat, it all seems like asking how many angels can foxtrot on a pinhead.

By incomplete logic you would be incorrect. However you left out the part that we don't claim Cuba as part of the US. And you left out the part about how the Chinese Civil War ended. And you left out the part about how we didn't chase the Cuban army to that island from soutn Florida.

No there isn't an immediate threat. However, it is prudent to discuss threats that may appear in the future. How many angels on the head of a pin is idleness, discussing what the PRC is up to ref Taiwan, is prudent.

The likely alternative - or one likely alternative, if it sounds better - to a fall of China's current government would be a PLA takeover, with generals calling the shots instead of businessmen.

I rather doubt businessmen are running the CCP, which is running China. I think CCP politicos are running the CCP and they are a hard lot.