China's Emergence as a Superpower (till 2014)

[Ray]

But why are we having the discussion in the first place? Does anyone really think a Chinese attack on Taiwan is imminent or probable? Given the double hypothetical involved - assume a Chinese attack on Taiwan and assume a US abandonment - the discussion honestly seems too abstract to mean much.

May have been true at points past, but at this point the huge risks to China of upsetting an economic applecart that has done them rather well is at least as great a restraining factor as any threat of US military action.

This entire discussion seems characterized by an assumption that "the Chinese" are some sort of monolithic and inherently aggressive mass, and that they are only the immediate threat of American force restrains from boiling forth and conquering all around them. I've seen no mention at all of China's internal political dynamics, which are at least as important to this equation as anything the US does, and very little effort to actually understand what goes on out in this part of the world. Are we assuming an "enemy" that must be "contained" and "deterred"? If so, why?

The short answer is that if the 'enemy' is not 'contained' or 'deterred', there will come a time when the 'enemy' will become too powerful to handle and then it will be a case of crying over spilt milk.

China is still a closed society and hence open sources have very little to educate one on the internal political dynamics of China (and even that could be biased) and hence there is hardly any scope for debate.

For perspective, these guys are from the knee-jerk anti-American left side of the fence and would seize on any excuse to scream for withdrawal from security arrangements with the US, or from any arrangements with the US.

Maybe true.

Yet, it could be a gentle reminder that the US must honour its commitments because if they don't, then nations will have to find new 'friends' and that may not be to the US interests in this region.

Let's not exaggerate, please. Nobody is under attack and there is no "time of need" at hand. This jockeying and jostling has been going on for years, and the US position has always been that it can exert influence most effectively by not directly taking sides. The US line is and has always been "the concerned parties need to resolve this through negotiations", not "the Spratlys belong to the Philippines". That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

It is not exaggeration at all.

One does not wait till one is under attack to be 'saved'. For if that were to be the case, it would be real unwise in my opinion.

Foreign Policy and Strategy and activities thereof of the present is not a knee jerk reaction. It is well thought out and with an eye on the future.

Negotiations are undertaken from a position of strength and not from a position of weakness. For if it were to be from a position of weakness, then one would have to succumb to whatever is being dictated. Therefore, steaming of a few warship does have its effect. Remember the USS George Washington and it effect?

USS George Washington: What message does it send to North Korea?

USS George Washington is being sent to the Yellow Sea after North Korea attacked South Korea's Yeonpyeong island.

By dispatching the USS George Washington, Obama is telling North Korea and its ally China that belligerent behavior will bring consequences.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign...to-North-Korea

And for this very reason, the US has agreed to hold naval exercises with the Philippines.

It is being done to send a message. I am not too sure if this was done before or after the Philippines claimed that the Mutual Pact was merely becoming a piece of paper!

I don't think anyone in the Third World has any illusions about China being a reliable ally or China acting in any way other than that which advances their immediate perceived interests. They do see advantage in being able to play the Chinese off against the Americans and vice versa. There's no loyalty or friendship in any of these relationships, just mutual utility... and everyone involved knows it.

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.

There is no permanent friends or enemies, but there is permanent interests. The interest of the countries on the rim of China is that it maintain status quo. What options do these countries have? It is a question of the US or China.

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!

Nobody knows if the cat will jump at all, or if it will need to. The Taiwanese don't really seem all that insecure, nor do I think they should be.

I would not speculate on that.

However, as an average man, I can say that I would be highly uncomfortable if I know that there is another nation which is very powerful that claims my land and my sole support is acting very 'iffy'.

The Philippines has not been left on a limb. The defense pact requires the US to defend the Philippines if the Philippines is attacked. It does not require the US to side with the Philippines in territorial disputes. Since the Philippines has not been attacked, there's nobody out on a limb.

Territorial disputes lead to acrimony and acrimony leads to wars.

I am sure the US nor Philippines want a war before their Defence Pact is put to test.

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'.

Very unlikely that any blowing will come out of a US/Philippine naval exercise, unless of course some of the US sailors get ashore. There will be ritual protests from the Chinese, they may sail around a bit themselves, everyone will wave their flags and rattle their sabers, then they will all go home and in a while they will do it all over again.

That is just what it intends it to be.

Sabre rattling and each goes back to their own corners.

My own concern over China revolves not around the threat of a continued Chinese economic rise and subsequent aggression, but around the very real possibility of a significant economic collapse, which could lead to all sorts of unpleasantness. It sounds strange, but in many ways US and regional interests are best served by a prosperous, growing China that grows ever more dependent on a globally interlinked economy than by a constrained, contained, and likely rather angry China.

How does a prosperous, growing China help?

Already China is already rocking the US boat.

Check this thread
http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ad.php?t=13525

Again, without looking at China's internal politics there's really not much point in trying to look at China's external policies. If US military posturing and aggressive comments end up empowering the Chinese factions we least want to see empowered, they really aren't doing any good.

It maybe true that US posturing would close ranks in China, but it will also give hope to many who are 'oppressed'.

We maybe underestimating the US. 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.

Underlying frustrations at social pressures including rampant food prices, house price inflation and corruption among local officials have also stoked the outburst of anger.

China has about 145m rural migrant workers. Though many of them have gained better wages and treatment in recent years, the gap between them and established urban residents remains stark, feeding anger at discrimination and ill-treatment. A pregnant stallholder assaulted by guards would embody that resentment in the eyes of many migrants.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/25370...#axzz1PDbIgN30

Further, one is well aware of the CCP's hatred towards 'foreign' religions and yet Christianity is the fastest growing religion in China.

Ten thousand Chinese become Christians each day, according to a stunning report by the National Catholic Reporter's veteran correspondent John Allen

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/IH07Ad03.html

One is well aware of Pope John Paul II's work in the defeat of Communism. When 'Solidarity' was underground in the 1980s, it was in churches, in the basement of churches that you could buy or get underground newspapers, have free discussions, meet artists who were not approved by the government and then came the deluge!

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'.

And China has 'house' Churches that are beyond the CCP control.