China's Emergence as a Superpower (till 2014)

[Dayuhan]

I would say that the US has made a great impression and has totally influenced India. The US influence is palpable. Hardly anyone talks of socialism or are enamoured by the legatees of the USSR i.e. Russia!

The Indian Communist parties which were the second largest at one time, has been reduced to such a state that they might lose the status of being a recognised national party! If that is not US influence, I wonder what is!

Are people turning away from communism because of "US influence" or because communism is a failed ideology that clearly has nothing to offer. Certainly capitalism prevailed over communism in the global ideas race (communism couldn't even finish the race) but I don't see that as "US influence", just as the collapse of an idea that basically sucked from the start.

The fact that Vietnam is making friendly overtures to the US is no small indication of the US influence spreading.

Again, that's less a question of US influence than of Vietnam emerging from its postwar shell and engaging more with other nations across the board, not just with the US. The US and Vietnam may both see it as in their mutual interest to cooperate to some extent on some issues, but that's less the US influencing Vietnam than a simple convergence of perceived interest.

Influence is not only the ability of getting people to do things you want, it also means getting people not to oppose what you wish to achieve. That is the subtle difference.

True enough, but again, I don't see any evidence that the US is causing anyone in SEA to alter policy in any way. Just because someone doesn't oppose something you want doesn't mean you caused them to take that position, it may simply mean that they see a convergence of interests. Nothing wrong with that of course, but I don't think it's valid to assume that such a convergence is orchestrated by the US or is a consequence of US influence.

In the Pacific Indian Ocean region, there definitely is an arms race. Modernising militaries automatically leads to an arms race. Modernising militaries in volatile regions can never be taken as routine or altruistic!

Who's racing? If modernization "automatically leads to an arms race", then the entire world is in an arms race.

There is nothing like low spending or high spending for defence. It depends on the Threat and the money available in the Exchequer.

It's also a question of political priorities. Vietnam and the Philippines have similarly sized economies, but Vietnam spends close to 3% of GDP on its military, the Philippines, despite having two serious active insurgencies, spends less than 1% of GDP on its military. Different priorities.

The fact that high level of hostilities including cutting cables and ramming shipping is no longer taking place is indicative that caution has been enforced.

Maybe the Vietnamese have also cut back on exploration in contested areas. These incidents come and go, and there's little evidence to suggest that any caution has been enforced... you can bet your last peso that another incident will come along soon enough, exercises or no exercises. Certainly US/Philippine exercises haven't enforced any caution at all.

I will not keep reproducing links, but if you had seen them, you would have seen that China not only undertook shrill indignation and protests, but also gave lessons on piety and morality to the US on exercises being undertaken by the US in the area.

Yes, they've always done that. The US has been known to give lectures on piety and morality as well. One of those things big nations do.

If the US was not taking sides, why have exercises with the two Nations who were in confrontation with China on SCS? If that type of display of military might and solidarity is not taking sides, then what is? Of course, you will say it was all routine. Are the areas where these routine exercises took place the same? That should also be routine so that it does not send a wrong message. And, why did the US exercise with Vietnam? Was that also routine?

The exercises are routine, yes. The US and the Philippines have been holding joint exercises for decades, and yes, they often take place in the SCS. I remember watching large numbers of ships and aircraft in exercises off the Zambales coast (near Scarborough Shoal) back in the 80s.

Worth noting, of course, that Vietnam and the Philippines have conflicting claims over the Spratlys and Paracels.

The US has quite explicitly stated that it's not going to side with anyone on the SCS territorial disputes. If there's an incident, the US response, exercises or no, is likely to be limited to urging everyone to resolve issues peacefully.

I daresay US is ever going to say that they are taking sides. Though it is axiomatic that US had to take sides with the Philippines because they have a Treaty. The very Treaty is indicative of 'taking sides'.

The treaty is old, and the wording is very ambiguous. The US has already stated that they would not consider an attack on a disputed area to be an attack on the Philippines, and even if, say, a Philippine ship were fired upon the treaty requires no more than response in accordance with constitutional process.

I wonder if you read President Obama speech on US strategic interests moving to the Pacific Asia rim.

I rarely pay attention to speeches. Actions speak louder.

Countries are not trying to manoeuvre anyone, to include the US. It is just that their national interest are converging.

The Philippines has tried to maneuver the US into making an expanded commitment of support and into providing a wider range of hardware at a lower price. They haven't succeeded with either effort. When you look beyond the rhetoric it looks like the US is maintaining some distance and is more interested in looking involved than in getting involved... fair bit of posturing and flag-showing, but a scrupulous effort to avoid commitment.

Most of the Asian nations mentioned have been expanding for years, but they have not increased their spending on defense previously.

Previously to what? Vietnam's submarine order was placed in 2009, negotiations began a year before that. The Gepard class frigates were ordered in 2006. The most capable surface combatants in SEA belong to Singapore; bidding on that contract began in the mid 90s, the order was made in 2000, the ships were delivered from 2004-2008. None of this is really new, and if you look at spending over time you see that spending increases as economies grow. Many countries have been methodically replacing 70s-vintage hardware as they can, but there's little evidence of a sudden surge in the last few years. I'd have to agree with Fuchs on this one, unless someone can show actual spending patterns as evidence to the contrary.

Much like many European countries, they were relying on others to take care of their defense needs so they could put more money into what you previously called productive activities.

Are European countries relying on tohers to handle their defense needs, or do they not perceive any pressing or imminent threat?

I don't think the Vietnamese have ever relied on others to take care of their defense needs. Overall (not just in SE Asia) there was a post cold war period in which perceptions of threat were very low, not an environment that encourages military spending, although many emerging nations continued spending (though not at exaggerated rates) anyway... pride is involved in these decisions.

Any suggestion that an "arms race" (in the sense of direct competition between or among nations) really needs to be accompanied by some kind of specific evidence.