China's Emergence as a Superpower (till 2014)

[Dayuhan]

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.

Was Saddam Hussein bothering us or our buddies in 2003?

How many times has the US used force against another country, overtly or covertly, since the second world war? How many of those times involved defending someone who was being pushed around? Let's not kid ourselves, we use force to advance our own perceived interests, just like everybody else, and our perception of our own interests is notoriously changeable.

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.

I don't fully trust the Chinese to act rationally, nor do I fully trust the US to act rationally. We are as emotion-drive as they are, and we're also driven by short-term political expedience and a fickle electoral cycle. If anything, they're more predictable than we are, medium to long term. I think the Chinese leadership weighs long term cost, benefit, and risk quite carefully... often more carefully than our leaders, preoccupied by domestic policy and electoral cycles, are likely to do.

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.

The US has a long tradition of using force (directly or by proxy) to get its way and to remove perceived enemies in Latin America... in fact we've more recent history of that than the Chinese do.

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.

Have we any tangible evidence to suggest that the PRC is up to anything ref Taiwan?

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.

Remember the golden rule: he who has the gold makes the rules.

Business has huge influence in China, and will as long as the economy is booming and the money is rolling in. A lot of the old politicos and the military chafe over that influence for sure, but as long as the money is flowing they have to deal with it... and the reality that messing with business is likely to generate a domestic explosion is all too evident to everyone in the picture. A successful Chinese business community gives China more capacity to cause trouble, but it also produces an interconnectedness and mutual dependence that creates a disincentive to major disruption.

I'm not terribly worried that China will grow to the point where its success swallows the world. I'm more concerned that an economic failure could cause major civil disturbance, ending with a takeover by military hardliners looking to expel the weak corrupt capitalists, return to the pure ways of mao, and make China great through conquest.

[carl]

Was Saddam Hussein bothering us or our buddies in 2003?

How many times has the US used force against another country, overtly or covertly, since the second world war? How many of those times involved defending someone who was being pushed around? Let's not kid ourselves, we use force to advance our own perceived interests, just like everybody else, and our perception of our own interests is notoriously changeable.

Let us confine ourselves to discussions of use of American sea power, especially against China, which we haven't used, even when they were shooting at us. This discussion is after all about the South China Sea. There is no threat to Chinese freedom of navigation. Actually given that we had been maintaining a no-fly zone over Iraq for 12 years prior to 2003, I'd say they had been bothering us, if only just a little.

Again, you use the "yea, well what about us?" argument. It is a distraction.

I don't fully trust the Chinese to act rationally, nor do I fully trust the US to act rationally. We are as emotion-drive as they are, and we're also driven by short-term political expedience and a fickle electoral cycle. If anything, they're more predictable than we are, medium to long term. I think the Chinese leadership weighs long term cost, benefit, and risk quite carefully... often more carefully than our leaders, preoccupied by domestic policy and electoral cycles, are likely to do.

You think they are or do, I don't.

The US has a long tradition of using force (directly or by proxy) to get its way and to remove perceived enemies in Latin America... in fact we've more recent history of that than the Chinese do.

You equated the PRC's desire to grab back Taiwan with our annoyance with Cuba. I pointed out that that was an invalid comparison and I stated why. You bring in the rest of Latin America, another use of "yea, well what about what we did?"

Have we any tangible evidence to suggest that the PRC is up to anything ref Taiwan?

They seem to get very upset when the Taiwanese do anything to that might lead to going their own way, they object to all arms sales, the first Sidewinder kill was by a ROC Sabre on a PLAAF MiG, they have fought often. There is lots of evidence there.

Remember the golden rule: he who has the gold makes the rules.

Remember also, he who wields the iron takes the gold. The CCP had the iron rod.

I'm not terribly worried that China will grow to the point where its success swallows the world. I'm more concerned that an economic failure could cause major civil disturbance, ending with a takeover by military hardliners looking to expel the weak corrupt capitalists, return to the pure ways of mao, and make China great through conquest.

The CCP ain't gonna lose control anytime soon. They maintained it during the great dyings of Mao's time. I am worried about what I've been saying I'm worried about. That new found wealth making them cocky and prone to adventure, especially if they get to believing their own press releases as was mentioned by somebody else.

[Dayuhan]

Let us confine ourselves to discussions of use of American sea power, especially against China, which we haven't used, even when they were shooting at us. This discussion is after all about the South China Sea. There is no threat to Chinese freedom of navigation. Actually given that we had been maintaining a no-fly zone over Iraq for 12 years prior to 2003, I'd say they had been bothering us, if only just a little.

Why should we confine ourselves to that extent? The Chinese aren't basing their estimates of America's will to use force to advance our interests purely on those criteria, they're looking at our behaviour across the world, the same way we look at theirs. The US does use force to advance its own perceived interests. It hasn't always done so with any rational or compelling reason (Iraq 2003 is but one example). That makes people nervous. Again, if you're assessing emotional motivations, don't disregard fear as one of them.

Again, you use the "yea, well what about us?" argument. It is a distraction.

It's a reminder that others don't necessarily see us the way we see ourselves.

You think they are or do, I don't.

Why not?

They seem to get very upset when the Taiwanese do anything to that might lead to going their own way, they object to all arms sales, the first Sidewinder kill was by a ROC Sabre on a PLAAF MiG, they have fought often. There is lots of evidence there.

Evidence of what? The Chinese have always felt the need to get upset whenever somebody reminds them of Taiwan's status, or emphasized Taiwan's status. They haven't shown any sign that they're really that committed to changing it, beyond words. Face-saving is an element there, always has been. Is anything up that hasn't been up for the last half-century or so?

Remember also, he who wields the iron takes the gold. The CCP had the iron rod.

It's not only about the existing gold, it's about the capacity to continue creating the gold, to keep the gold rolling in, to buy a pacified populace. Business has that capacity, the party doesn't (though business is of course a major presence and influence within the party).

The CCP ain't gonna lose control anytime soon. They maintained it during the great dyings of Mao's time. I am worried about what I've been saying I'm worried about. That new found wealth making them cocky and prone to adventure, especially if they get to believing their own press releases as was mentioned by somebody else.

The CCP may not lose control, but different people can gain control of the CCP. They may not be an improvement on what's there now.

I'm not saying these issues don't exist or don't deserve attention and concern. They have to be put in perspective and treated as what they are, though: one more step in a long-running game of push and shove. There's nothing new going on, no drastic change that requires a drastic response. Overreaction is not going to help, and puff and bluster may not be the most effective reaction.

[Bill Moore]

Posted by Carl,

I'm not terribly worried that China will grow to the point where its success swallows the world. I'm more concerned that an economic failure could cause major civil disturbance, ending with a takeover by military hardliners looking to expel the weak corrupt capitalists, return to the pure ways of mao, and make China great through conquest.

The China that Mao controlled was a much different China than today. He controlled a China largely populated by uneducated peasants, and he conducted a few purges to get rid of a few million potential dissenters, while the world turned a blind eye. Today China is much larger educated class that has high expectations of brighter tomorrow. I doubt the military would support a Maoist type purge to stop dissent, but if they did the world would respond in a number of ways (trade embarko, etc.) that China would be forced to respond to, and they know that. They also know that Taiwan has a functional economic model, and it may not be out of the realm of the possible if the CCP had a major crisis that the government of Taiwan could assume control finally uniting the Chinese again, so this may be a reason China is nervous about Taiwan. A lot of economic analysts think China's bubble is going to burst in the next two years, what happens when (and if) that occurs is the million dollar question.

[Ray]

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.

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.

What has to be understood is that it is more important for the US to have allies around the world than little nations and Third World countries to have US as their all.

Small countries have no options. They have to adjust and are forced by the circumstances to align or, if they have been able to manage it, have a loose alliance to protect their interests. The current contenders to align with are China and the US.

The choice is obvious. One would align with the US because the ‘values’ are near similar and because the US is not in the close proximity and so the chance of territorial disputes are negligible. Further, one has to see the historical antecedents. The US was not an imperialist power expanding its territories.

Compare the same parameters with China. The political ‘values’ are most dissimilar. The close proximity leads to territorial claims and that can keep increasing even if some understanding is reached for the initial claims and historically China has been an imperialist power that has a unique method to Sinicize people. The attempts in Tibet and Xinjiang are modern cases in point.

The US does not want to be played around. What makes one feel that it can be played around? Take the example of India (and it not quite a pushover either). India requires Iran gas very urgently and it had good relations with Iran so much so India has participated in industry, business and building Iran’s infrastructure such as the Chahbahar port. Yet, India had to give way because of US pressures. India voted against Iran and has walked out of the Iran – Pakistan – India pipeline project. In short, India has lost a friend in many ways than one. Strategically, whatever little India could have done in pursuing her strategic interest in Afghanistan, and to a great extent in CAR has gone for a toss. So, it is another of the myths that the US can be ‘played around’.

The issue of ‘business and investment’ is overdone. Business and investment will get attracted. come what may, if the environment is conducive. If the environment is not conducive, then no coercion or otherwise can attract anything. A case in point is that China does business with India and vice versa since it is profitable to do so, even though there is a cold hostility.

The positioning of warships in Singapore by the US is hardly a ritual. It is an unfriendly act as far as China is concerned, more so, the warships have been placed in an area considered as an international ‘strategic chokepoint’.

If it were but only a ritual, then why has India not given access to the US to have submarine pens in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands which could allow US dominance over the Straits of Malacca, the Ten Degree channel as also the seaways to Myanmar, where the Chinese are said to have naval facilities?

The US is not changing anything by holding exercises or steaming a aircraft carrier in the proximity of China. It is only being a ‘threat in being’. In other words, a threat and yet not applied.

China does not swallow anyone as if it were a hungry alligator. Notice the subtlety in ‘peacefully’ trying to change the perception that Arunachal Pradesh is ‘South Tibet’ or the ‘friendly’ manner in which she made her claim and annexed the Shaksgam Valley in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir. The Chinese are a very patient people.

Sun Tzu said:

All men can see these tactics whereby I conquer, but what none can see is the strategy out of which victory is evolved.

[Dayuhan]

Small countries have no options. They have to adjust and are forced by the circumstances to align or, if they have been able to manage it, have a loose alliance to protect their interests. The current contenders to align with are China and the US.

Small countries don't have to align with one or the other. They can, and often do, maintain relations with both, and try to get the big powers to compete for their friendship. The large can push and shove; the small have to manipulate.

The choice is obvious. One would align with the US because the ‘values’ are near similar and because the US is not in the close proximity and so the chance of territorial disputes are negligible. Further, one has to see the historical antecedents. The US was not an imperialist power expanding its territories.

Then where does all this talk about the "American Empire" come from? Not that I'm persuaded by that construct, but lots of people are, and lots of people see US domination as a threat as imminent as Chinese aggression.

The US does not want to be played around. What makes one feel that it can be played around? Take the example of India (and it not quite a pushover either). India requires Iran gas very urgently and it had good relations with Iran so much so India has participated in industry, business and building Iran’s infrastructure such as the Chahbahar port. Yet, India had to give way because of US pressures. India voted against Iran and has walked out of the Iran – Pakistan – India pipeline project. In short, India has lost a friend in many ways than one. Strategically, whatever little India could have done in pursuing her strategic interest in Afghanistan, and to a great extent in CAR has gone for a toss. So, it is another of the myths that the US can be ‘played around’.

Aren't the Pakistanis playing the US, and rather effectively? What's the US return on all that investment?

People work the US all the time. Sometimes they try and fail: not so long ago, for example, the Georgian government tried to push the edge with the Russians, assuming they could pull the US in behind them. It didn't work; the US refused to be played. Under other circumstances it might have worked. Telling someone that you're on their side all the time, no matter what happens, just encourages that party to go out and get into trouble.

The positioning of warships in Singapore by the US is hardly a ritual. It is an unfriendly act as far as China is concerned, more so, the warships have been placed in an area considered as an international ‘strategic chokepoint’.

Possibly unfriendly, in a marginal sort of way. They'll live with it, and it won't change their plans.

The Chinese are a very patient people.

The US might do well to emulate that stereotype, though if China's economy falters, as is likely, we may see that a lot of Chinese are less patient than we expected them to be.

[Ray]

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.

A Treaty does not mean that it is activated when any of the signatories are attacked. I would reiterate that if one come to a partner’s assistance when only attacked, it would turn out to be a very costly exercise, in men, matériels and finance when compared to armed warning without a war to blow away a crisis.

I again reiterate that the US strongly supports negotiations, but not from a position of weakness. That is why the naval exercises and the position of warship in the strategic chokepoint

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.

Of course, as you say it is silly of the US to view the Chinese aircraft carrier it purely in the light of China - US relations. There is no doubt about that. But the US strategist do not seen things in isolation and I daresay they are blind as is being suggested.

Threat Analysis is an ongoing process and it takes into account every acquisition into account and what could be its effect. For instance, one aircraft carrier, is not that material but slot it in the jigsaw of the various acquisitions of their Navy to include submarines etc and you will find that they are well on their way to transform from a Brown water to a Blue Water Navy. And what can their Blue Water navy do for China's power projection? If that is something to be complacent about, then that would be an interesting viewpoint.

I would consider it naive if one believes that China is rapidly modernising her armed forces to include Stealth aircraft and ships for 'peaceful' purposes. Indeed, a Blue Water Navy is not for defending the shores and instead is for offensive action and power projection. It is also worth noting that China does not posses far flung overseas territories that makes it essential to have a Blue Water Navy for defensive purposes.

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.

No exercise by any country, scheduled or unscheduled, is taken as a 'ritual', more so, by those who consider such nations as potential adversaries.

Let me give one example. USSR used to follow NATO naval manoeuvres, even though it was a 'ritual', with spy trawlers and used to 'buzz' the NATO ships for reaction. It is obvious that USSR was interested in NATO tactics and state of operational efficiency.

The exercises being now conducted, hot on the heels of the crisis, would be observed closely, even if it was passed off, let us say, manoeuvres aimed to hone anti Terrorist or anti Pirate naval cooperation!

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.

By your contention that a country can change its defence treaty obligations as and when desired, North Korea is becoming a nuclear state that is delivery capable. China is a 'peace loving' Nation. Should China not drop them like a 'hot potato' because North Korea is not 'peace loving' as China?

If China's friendship is based on perceived self interest, may I suggest that US Defence Treaties in the Pacific is also based on self interest - a contention you seem to wish away in the case of the US, but readily espouse for China!!

And your comments on Myanmar?

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?

It appears that you are not updating yourself.

Pakistan is not getting friendly with Chinese or Russia just to get 'something out of the US' or 'getting irritated with the US'.

They are merely keeping all options open in their self interest.

Pakistan, in no way, is playing US against China or China against the US. Where have they played in this fashion. Name one.

Pakistan's equation with the US is WoT. It helps to keep Pakistan afloat financially and militarily. It has nothing to do with Pakistan China relationship.

Pakistan's equation with China is assistance from China to build Pakistan's infrastructure, equip its forces with cheaper military hardware which are effective being US or Russian copies, and act as an ally against India. These interest have no clash with the US interests in Pakistan.

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.

So, morality is never a question?

It is perfect for China to circumvent NPT or NNPT and construct two nuclear plants for Pakistan?

If there is no modicum of morality to be followed or be necessary, then why have these treaties?

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.

If a threat to Philippines is not a threat to Philippine interest, territorial integrity (as perceived by Philippines) and its security, then what is? Attack on Mindanao?

Earthquakes cause tsunamis.

Earthquake without an ocean cause a tremor!

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.

No one is proposing to detach China from the world.

It is for China to make its mark on the world and there is no requirement for others to topple over each other to help China on her way.

In fact, one should topple over each other to save impoverished nations like Burkina Faso and such like nations.

Many countries may have gone the way of 'cheap, shoddy goods' and become what they are today e.g. Japan.

We can await China to grow out of 'cheap, shoddy goods' and then acclaim that she has arrived!

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.

Corpse to many, but still surviving!

If it were a corpse, the dirge would have sung.

What one forget is that one compares nations by western standards of requirement for creature comforts and sustenance. Or the PPP. While it is true that it looks abysmal, the resilience and the survival instinct with the basic minimum is immense. Therefore, sanctions only affects the elite and not the real poor and the majority are the real poor.

For instance, 'living under $2 a day' if compared to the purchasing power of $2 in US is not the same as in, say Burkina Faso. $2 possibly can sustain a family since what may appear 'necessities' in the US is considered a 'luxury' in Burkina Faso. And it is not that there is only one breadwinner. The whole family works alarming westerners of 'child labour' etc. Child labour in such country becomes a necessity and more the children more is the family kitty!! A vicious circle, but that is how it works.

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

The socialist ship had sunk long ago. Mao did not feel so.

Many companies from many countries. Potential profit draws companies.

And why are they re-locating?

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.

Containment is not only military.

A serious contender has to be made to know its station!!

[Ray]

Small countries don't have to align with one or the other. They can, and often do, maintain relations with both, and try to get the big powers to compete for their friendship. The large can push and shove; the small have to manipulate.

Easier said than done; more so, if the small country falls in the area of interest of large powers.

Chinese proverb - When Big Fish fight, little fish eaten!

Little fish has little option but to align. Alignment also give other advantages beyond the military and so many small nations in the arena of contending big powers join to uplift their nations in addition to the inherent protection that it gains.

Myanmar is surviving because it is an ally of China and does not require to play or manipulate other nations to survive.

Then where does all this talk about the "American Empire" come from? Not that I'm persuaded by that construct, but lots of people are, and lots of people see US domination as a threat as imminent as Chinese aggression.

What American Empire?

Have I used it?

'Neo colonialism' was a Soviet coinage to indicate that smaller allies of the US was bound by US dictates. But would that be an Empire? To some, maybe. To others, it was leadership towards a mutual goal.

By that token, does the UN represent the will of the world?

Or does it represent the will of the Big 5 of the UNSC?

Therefore, one could say that the world is a Big 5 Empire!!!

Aren't the Pakistanis playing the US, and rather effectively? What's the US return on all that investment?

Yes.

But that is on WoT, which is in the interest of the US and ISAF.

If WoT is a success, who reaps the harvest in ideological and policy terms?

Pakistan?

In fact, Pakistan is against the WoT. They have just arrested those who helped the US in the Osama raid.

Therefore, call it weasel-like or otherwise, but Pakistan is extracting its pound of flesh and making hay while the sun shines!

That is the price the US has to pay to win the WoT.

Protecting Freedom and one's way of life is an expensive game!

People work the US all the time. Sometimes they try and fail: not so long ago, for example, the Georgian government tried to push the edge with the Russians, assuming they could pull the US in behind them. It didn't work; the US refused to be played. Under other circumstances it might have worked. Telling someone that you're on their side all the time, no matter what happens, just encourages that party to go out and get into trouble.

Nations do work the US. But it is not that the US is not gaining out of it. If US was not gaining, then the US would not have been out there where people or nations can work them.

The US did not pull Georgia's chestnuts out of the fire because Georgia was not in NATO nor it had any Treaty with the US.

Possibly unfriendly, in a marginal sort of way. They'll live with it, and it won't change their plans.

Their (China's) option to change any plans have been snatched away by the US positioning warships on a permanent basis at Singapore. That is what is called strategic foresight.

The US might do well to emulate that stereotype, though if China's economy falters, as is likely, we may see that a lot of Chinese are less patient than we expected them to be.

If the Chinese economy falters, they can get impatient as much as they like. Their clout will diminish and they will have the status of being a 'has been'.

All salute the rising sun and not the one that has eclipsed!

[carl]

Posted by Carl,



The China that Mao controlled was a much different China than today. He controlled a China largely populated by uneducated peasants, and he conducted a few purges to get rid of a few million potential dissenters, while the world turned a blind eye. Today China is much larger educated class that has high expectations of brighter tomorrow. I doubt the military would support a Maoist type purge to stop dissent, but if they did the world would respond in a number of ways (trade embarko, etc.) that China would be forced to respond to, and they know that. They also know that Taiwan has a functional economic model, and it may not be out of the realm of the possible if the CCP had a major crisis that the government of Taiwan could assume control finally uniting the Chinese again, so this may be a reason China is nervous about Taiwan. A lot of economic analysts think China's bubble is going to burst in the next two years, what happens when (and if) that occurs is the million dollar question.

Bill: Dayuhan posted that to which you responded.

I would say the world has a very great capacity to turn a blind eye to slaughter so a Maoist type purge is maybe not so far fetched.

[Bill Moore]

Carl, maybe in parts of Africa and Burma, but I don't think the world will turn a blind eye to China, since its economy is now integrated with the global economy.

I also think the China threat is over played, not that they are not a potential threat, but they are also relatively easy to defeat. China is far from being resilient, it has a number of internal problems with its various ethnic groups, and various economic groups. These groups can easily be agitated by any number of external actors. They have one aircraft carrier that we can easily destroy, so what? A lot of smaller countries have aircraft carriers. China is just starting to modernize it forces, so down the road they may be a real "potential" threat, but for the immediate future I think we clearly hold the advantages in the unlikely event there is a conflict.

[JMA]

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.

I suggest you are arguing merely for the sake of having an argument. Mere opinion does not cut it. Why not state your own position instead of just picking holes in what others say?

[Dayuhan]

Their (China's) option to change any plans have been snatched away by the US positioning warships on a permanent basis at Singapore. That is what is called strategic foresight.

How so? I don't see how the presence of two Littoral Combat Ships in Singapore is going to change anything. The Chinese will continue resource exploration in the South China Sea, and they will continue to push the edges when they choose to do so.

I noticed today that Philippine officialdom are now referring to the "West Philippine Sea". We may not have much of a navy but we play the semantic game as well as anyone!

If the Chinese economy falters, they can get impatient as much as they like. Their clout will diminish and they will have the status of being a 'has been'.

All salute the rising sun and not the one that has eclipsed!

If the Chinese economy falters - and if you're following the Chinese real estate bubble you'll know that the process may have already started - we could easily see impatient people forcing a change in government. The new government could easily be far more aggressive than what we have now. Even if we had the capacity or intention to do economic damage to the Chinese, it's very doubtful that it would be in our interest to do so.

I suggest you are arguing merely for the sake of having an argument. Mere opinion does not cut it.

Opinion is what you get around here, from just about everyone.

Why not state your own position

Don't panic over China, or assume that China is an "enemy". Don't assume that everything the Chinese do requires some chest-thumping puff and posture show of military force in response. I know we've traditionally needed somebody to fear, but fear rarely drives effective policy.

[JMA]

JMA,

I don't think the U.S. or any other nation for that matter is unaware of the big changes regarding China's assertiveness. Russia is also more assertive. The question is how to manage and respond to it. The U.S.'s ability to influence based on superpower status is waning, but it is still very powerful. I am not sure what you are proposing the U.S. do at this point that it isn't already doing? I hope you are not proposing we go to war with China over some important, but still relatively minor incidents the SCS? I can't see how that will benefit us, or the global economy.

Nearly missed this one.

My point was made when I stated that the opportunity to counter any potential future military threat against US interests from the Russia (then the Soviets) and China passed in the the 50's. A limited war against either power will not be possible as neither will be the widespread use of nukes. It is therefore better for the US to accept that it will need to give ground to either power in a slow and controlled manner in the forlorn hope that internal developments within those powers will reduce their need for aggressive expansionism over time.

There is simply no point in deluding oneself that one (the US) can counter and if necessary defeat either power if push comes to shove. The best course of action is as Truman did back then is to defer the problem to the next generation. This head in the sand mentality is repeating itself now as the generation Truman passed the problem to prepares to do the same to their children. But let our generation not kid itself and our children that there is no real problem that needs attention and continue to just kick the can down the street... let us attempt a little honesty this time.

[Dayuhan]

My point was made when I stated that the opportunity to counter any potential future military threat against US interests from the Russia (then the Soviets) and China passed in the the 50's. A limited war against either power will not be possible as neither will be the widespread use of nukes.

I sense another bout of historical revisionism coming on... what exactly was the US supposed to do in the 1950s to "counter any potential future military threat" from Russia and China? Nuke them? How and why does one go about countering potential future threats? Are we to try to preemptively counter any threat that might possibly someday exist?

It is therefore better for the US to accept that it will need to give ground to either power in a slow and controlled manner in the forlorn hope that internal developments within those powers will reduce their need for aggressive expansionism over time.

So far the US hasn't given any ground at all. The Russians certainly did: they lost an immense amount of ground with the fall of the Soviet Union. Of course that ground wasn't gained by the US, it was gained by the people who live on it, which is as it should be.

Neither Russia nor China can reasonably called "aggressively expansionist", and the US isn't "losing ground" to anyone. We're adjusting to a more multipolar world with greater economic balance, but that's inevitable and needn't be something to fear.

There is simply no point in deluding oneself that one (the US) can counter and if necessary defeat either power if push comes to shove.

Neither can either "counter and if necessary defeat" the US if push comes to shove. There's a very strong incentive not to let push come to shove, as there was during the cold war... and that's not necessarily a bad thing. If any of these powers had the capacity to conclusively defeat any other, they'd be tempted to use that capacity. The less of that the better.

[Ray]

Dayuhan,

The treaty between the US and the Philippines requires the US to assist the Philippines in the event of an attack on the Philippines. It does not require the US to support Philippine claims in disputed areas. I don't know how much clearer that could possibly be. Of course the US may take steps to support the Philippines in the absence of an attack, but that's an option, it's not a treaty obligation.

A treaty that required a stronger power to come to the aid of a weaker power in any trouble the weaker party got into would be an incentive to the weaker party to get into trouble, knowing they would be supported. For example, the US has made it clear that the defense treaty would not be triggered if the Philippines got into it with Malaysia over the Philippine claim to Sabah. Any other position would encourage adventurism.

Naval exercises and a couple of Littoral Combat Ships in Singapore don't create a position of strength. The relative balance of strength will be as it was before. The idea is to create a perception of commitment, which again really doesn't change much. Both sides will continue to poke and prod as they can, where they will, and see how others react. Nothing new.

What is the difference between a Treaty and a Strategic Alliance?

A treaty with a stronger power does not in anyway become a licence for the weaker of the two to go adventurous. It would be a total misconception, and even insulting, to believe that Third World countries have leaders who are dimwits. I don’t know how, but I am getting a feeling that you take Third World countries to be banana republics.

It would be worth noting that countries with Treaty obligations undertake dialogue before embarking on activities that might require the other partner to cooperation. It is never unilateral!

Of course, the US has made it clear that the defence treaty would not be triggered if the Philippines got into it with Malaysia over the Philippine claim to Sabah. Any other position would encourage adventurism.

Isn’t it but natural? Is the strategic interest of the US with Malaysia the same as China?

The positioning of US naval warships permanently in Singapore, you may see as ‘probe and prod’, but for China, it is a matter of serious concern since the capability to interdict China’s commercial and economic interests in the Middle East and Africa goes up a couple of notches.

It maybe worth what happened to General Torrijos, the man who oversaw the nationalization of the Panama Canal and why Noriega became the President of Panama. The importance of control of ‘strategic chokepoints’ are critical to international geopolitics and geostrategy.

In so far as what is the importance of naval exercises are mere routine and have insignificant and marginal impact one wonders then as to why mere talks create such a furore in China? Shouldn’t talks and naval exercises be taken as another day’s work by your form of reasoning?

China issues lurk behind Obama's visit to Asia

President Barack Obama visited the four Asian countries of India, Indonesia, South Korea and Japan and attended the G20 Summit held in Seoul as well as the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Summit held in Yokohama.......

Both China and the United States are playing games in the Asian and Pacific regions. However, as Clinton said, both China and the United States should not play a "zero-sum game."

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90...3/7201357.html

Breaking out of US containment

If a deeper confrontation is inevitable, what can China do? ....

China won't follow a path to war like Japan did in World War II, but that does not mean that China will surrender to US strategic containment.....

If the US takes China as an enemy, the result would be disastrous......

http://opinion.globaltimes.cn/editor...04/559852.html

If mere words and meetings can spook China, it would be surprising if positioning of warships in a strategic chokepoint that is critical to China and naval exercises would be taken as all in a day's work!

Quote:

The US Navy is larger than all the other navies in the world together. Does the US "possess far flung overseas territories"?

The Chinese have extensive commercial interests in Africa, which could at any time be threatened by insurgency, with or without a bit of stirring up by rival powers. The US maintains the capacity to "do FID" or intervene on behalf of governments it supports, why wouldn't China seek the same capacity? The vast majority of China's energy imports and large amounts of commercial exports pass through the Indian Ocean, where they could be subject to all kinds of interference in time of conflict. Isn't it quite natural for the Chinese to want the capacity to protect its commerce? Isn't that a capacity that virtually every commercial power in history has sought?

Of course the Chinese want the capacity to project power if needed. Isn't that a capacity the US already has? Is it right in one case and wrong in the other?

Does the US not have overseas territories?

Maybe this would help:



Of course, China has to have a Blue Water Navy for forays beyond the South China Seas, but then that is exactly where the chokepoints come into play. That is exactly the reason why one has to ensure that one is aware that unless one plays cricket, it would not be in one’s interest.

What is international relations all about?

Dominance, direct or subtle.

Hence, containment and quasi containment.

Observing is part of the ritual. Doesn't change the way things stand between or among the countries involved.

To believe that exercises are merely a part of an established routine with the suggestion that it is a ‘Been there, Done that’ ‘circus’, would actually indicate that importance and the nuances involved in such exercises is not understood. If indeed, they were meaningless, then in this world of soaring fuel prices, it would be better to have all naval platforms in the dry dock and mothballed!

All treaties, everywhere, all the time, are based on perceived self interest. What other possible basis could there be?

I didn't say anything about changing defence treaty obligations, I merely pointed out that the current situation does not produce any such obligation for the US... though treaty obligations and how (and if) they are fulfilled will always be assessed according to perceived interests at that time. That is by no means only true of the US, it applies to everyone.

Of course all treaties are based on self interest. It is so evident.

There are also fraternal ties too or so I believe was what bonded the Communist nations.

You seem to have missed my point.

My point was that inspite of North Korea having nuclear capability and nuclear weapons delivery capability, China has not dropped North Korea like, IIRC your words, ‘hot potato’, I fail to understand why you expect the US to drop its allies like ‘hot potatoes’ when they are in conflict of interest with China.

The other point is that you merely state that the current situation does not produce any such obligation for the US.... That is a mere opinion of yours. Maybe that opinion should be amplified with some explanation so that one can understand the rationale behind that blanket statement.

Here's a suggestion of playing:

http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=96627

With due regards to you and the pakobserver that you quote, an issue that one must remember is that a Nation that is a near international pariah and a near failed state, requires to boost its and its citizenry’s morale by living in a state of denial and clutching a every straw like a drowning man that appears on the horizon.

For instance:

China denies talks with Pak to build naval base at Gwadar port

China today denied any talks with Pakistan for building a naval base at the strategic Gwadar deep sea port, which was built with its assistance in Balochistan.

No such proposal figured during the just concluded visit of Prime Minister, Yousuf Raza Gilani, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Jiang Yu told a media briefing here, when asked about reported remarks by Pakistan Defence Minister Chaudhry Ahmad Mukhtar, about the project.
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/...pak-build.html

In other words, further improvement may have been on the cards during the discussion, but a grandiose twist was dreamt so as to impress and give confidence to the domestic audience that all is not lost!

Therefore, one cannot find fault with the Pakistan Observer for building castles in the air and giving such impressions in their article.

[Ray]

Dayuhan

The treaties exist because of perceived interests. Why would morality have anything to do with it? China supports N. Korea because they fear the consequences of that regime collapsing. No morality involved.

Again, I would ask you that if there were not a modicum of some morality involved in Treaties, then why have the Non Proliferation Treaty at all since you seem to suggest that it is but merely a piece of worthless paper!

Then why ask the world to ratify it?

I didn't say Myanmar is a corpse, I said imposing economic sanctions on Myanmar is analogous to banning a corpse from a dance floor. It's pointless to ban a corpse from a dance floor because the corpse can't dance anyway. It's pointless to impose economic sanctions on Myanmar because the Myanmar economy can't dance: they've no exports worthy of the name and little capacirty to import. Economic sanctions will only mean something if a country's economy depends on global linkages. Myanmar's doesn't.

Apparently, you fail to comprehend how Myanmar exists as you possibly you fail understand how Pakistan exists.

It is the national psyche that moves them on inspite of impediments (to the western observer) that would make a western country revolt!

People who have little and very few wants can survive; as Myanmar.

People who have extreme religious zeal, can survive with bombings done by external forces and by their own people against their own people as in Pakistan. Pakistan experiences daily attacks by TTP or by US Drones. The common Pakistanis should have been on their knees. But no such thing is evident. They die and still live on as if it were routine!!

It was a slow sink. The rats finally jumped ship, as anyone would... I mean, we talk of rats leaving a sinking ship, but who in his right mind doesn't leave a sinking ship? The Chinese didn't adopt capitalism because the US wanted them to, they did it because they wanted to, for fairly obvious reasons.

Who does not leave a sinking ship?

The boy who stood on the Burning Deck, Casabianca

There came a burst of thunder sound...
The boy-oh! where was he?
Ask of the winds that far around
With fragments strewed the sea.
With mast, and helm, and pennon fair,
That well had borne their part;
But the noblest thing which perished there
Was that young faithful heart.

It is a true story.

The story relates to an extraordinary incident of devotion and heroism witnessed during the Battle of the Nile.
It was on the evening of July 28 of 1798 that the English naval squadron under Lord Nelson sailed in. They had caught the French fleet at anchor and unprepared. The French flagship was the L'Orient and it soon found itself flanked by English ships attacking from both sides. A fierce battle was soon raging and the flashes of 2000 guns lit up the ships in the gathering darkness. L'Orient was caught by the English broadsides and was set ablaze.
It was then that the English sailors saw an amazing sight. There on that burning deck they saw a boy standing alone. He was Cassabianca, the 12 year old son of one of the ship's officers. There he stood, alone at his post. He was surrounded by flames and facing the astonished English foe. Soon afterwards the fire reached the powder magazine deep down in the hold. The boy perished when the whole ship erupted in a massive explosion.

Stations change, and evolve... it is not the right or responsibility of the US to determine anyone else's station or impose any given station on anyone.

Many may share your opinion, but it is not shared by the US Govt or by a majority of US citizens of all origin.

If the Chinese economy falters - and if you're following the Chinese real estate bubble you'll know that the process may have already started - we could easily see impatient people forcing a change in government. The new government could easily be far more aggressive than what we have now. Even if we had the capacity or intention to do economic damage to the Chinese, it's very doubtful that it would be in our interest to do so.

Could you amplify this contention of yours:

Even if we had the capacity or intention to do economic damage to the Chinese, it's very doubtful that it would be in our interest to do so

Why would it not be of interest to the US to see China go Russia's way?

Russia has been sent at least a decade back in the competition to be a world leader.

I am sure you will agree that the US wants to be the indisputable world leader.

Di.ck Cheney and George Bush thought so and so did Clinton and Obama with his quiet diplomacy does not show any indication to the contrary either!

[AdamG]

TOKYO – Japan's Defense Ministry said Thursday 11 Chinese warships were spotted in international waters off the country's southern island of Okinawa.

No territorial violations were claimed by Japan, but the movements are sensitive because Japan and China have a dispute over small islands in the East China Sea.

The ministry on Thursday said the Chinese warships were monitored passing from the Pacific Ocean into the East China Sea.

Ministry spokesman Shuichi Fukuya said they were believed to be returning from target practice and refueling exercises in waters about 1,500 kilometers (930 miles) south of Okinawa.

He said the Japanese military saw the Chinese warships heading out to the area June 8-9.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110623/...hpbmVzZXdhcnNo

[Dayuhan]

The positioning of US naval warships permanently in Singapore, you may see as ‘probe and prod’, but for China, it is a matter of serious concern since the capability to interdict China’s commercial and economic interests in the Middle East and Africa goes up a couple of notches.

Maybe a couple of very very tiny notches. Given the force disparity in the Middle East and the Indian Ocean, Two LCS in Singapore represents an insignificant increment in US capacity between Asia and Africa/theME.

In so far as what is the importance of naval exercises are mere routine and have insignificant and marginal impact one wonders then as to why mere talks create such a furore in China? Shouldn’t talks and naval exercises be taken as another day’s work by your form of reasoning?

The furor is part of the ritual. It's one of the most important parts of the ritual. Like American politicians, Chinese politicians often perceive benefit in convincing people that they have external enemies that they must fear, must be vigilant against, must rally together behind their government against...

If mere words and meetings can spook China, it would be surprising if positioning of warships in a strategic chokepoint that is critical to China and naval exercises would be taken as all in a day's work!

Exercises are transient; they last a few days and end, and things go back to being as they were. As above, the small deployment in Singapore makes no meaningful difference, though much will be said of it.

Does the US not have overseas territories?

Maybe this would help:

Does the US need 11 carriers to defend Guam, American Samoa, and the Marianas? Hardly. The US Navy isn't built to defend US territories abroad, it's built to protect US commerce and interests overseas, and to project American power in areas where the US has interests. The Chinese are building a navy for the same purposes. Is that a surprise? Surely we don't expect the Chinese to assume that the US Navy will protect their shipping and defend their interests in the Middle East and Africa!

What is international relations all about?

Dominance, direct or subtle.

Hence, containment and quasi containment.

Does the US dominate or contain the EU? India? Brazil? International relations don't have to be about dominance and containment. They become that way when we assume an enemy.

My point was that inspite of North Korea having nuclear capability and nuclear weapons delivery capability, China has not dropped North Korea like, IIRC your words, ‘hot potato’, I fail to understand why you expect the US to drop its allies like ‘hot potatoes’ when they are in conflict of interest with China.

The Chinese obviously don't believe that the North Korean nuclear capacity affects their perceived interests in the relationship. Why would the drop the North Koreans unless that perception was altered?

I don't expect the US to drop it's allies, unless its perceived interests in those alliances change. I expect the US to act in accordance with its perceived interests at any given time. I expect the same from other nations.

The other point is that you merely state that the current situation does not produce any such obligation for the US.... That is a mere opinion of yours. Maybe that opinion should be amplified with some explanation so that one can understand the rationale behind that blanket statement.

It's also the opinion of the US Government. The US/Philippine mutual defense treaty obligates the US to come to the aid of the Philippines in the event of an attack on the Philippines. It does not obligate the US to support Philippine claims in disputed territories. The US may support those claims if and to the extent that it chooses, but it's not a treaty obligation.

I don't see how that can be made any more clear.

With due regards to you and the pakobserver that you quote, an issue that one must remember is that a Nation that is a near international pariah and a near failed state, requires to boost its and its citizenry’s morale by living in a state of denial and clutching a every straw like a drowning man that appears on the horizon.

A nation clutching at straws would naturally take any opportunity to play potential and actual allies against each other, especially if those potential allies are rivals who compete with each other for influence. Of course the Pakistani Government has a bit of a problem in that regard, as none of the potential ally/rivals are terribly fond of the Islamic extremist network the Pakistani Government has harnessed itself to... but that's a subject for another thread!

[Dayuhan]

Again, I would ask you that if there were not a modicum of some morality involved in Treaties, then why have the Non Proliferation Treaty at all since you seem to suggest that it is but merely a piece of worthless paper!

Then why ask the world to ratify it?

Because it serves the interests of the signatory parties... just as it has also served the interests of various parties to ignore the treaty when it's not convenient. It's about perceived interests, not morality. Of course nations always try to present their perceived interests as moral, but we needn't concern ourselves with that particular charade.

Apparently, you fail to comprehend how Myanmar exists as you possibly you fail understand how Pakistan exists.

I know exactly how they exist. My point was simply that economic sanctions have limited impact on economies and governments that are not dependent on international linkages.

Why would it not be of interest to the US to see China go Russia's way?

Russia has been sent at least a decade back in the competition to be a world leader.

Not really a relevant comparison. Russia never had any economic success; they went from a dysfunctional Communist economy to a dysfunctional crony-psuedocapitalist economy, surviving only on energy resources. China has already experienced significant economic progress and shown the capacity for economic evolution. Economic evolution is probably the bst chance we have of seeing political evolution in China, though it will likely take generations. A significant disruption to that evolution might drive a Russia-in-the-90s scenario, but it could just as easily drive a Germany-in-1932-33 scenario. It's very possible that this could happen on its own, but I see no reason for the US to provoke it.

I am sure you will agree that the US wants to be the indisputable world leader.

Di.ck Cheney and George Bush thought so and so did Clinton and Obama with his quiet diplomacy does not show any indication to the contrary either!

Silly thing to want, and I hope we've outgrown it. The costs and responsibilities of that position far exceed the benefits.

[Backwards Observer]

A blast from the past by some guy named Ike:

Dear Winston: I have heard how earnestly you supported throughout the Conference of Prime Ministers the proposition that nothing must create a serious rift in British-American relationships. Not only do I applaud that sentiment, but I am most deeply grateful to you for your successful efforts.

I realize that it has been difficult, at times, for you to back us up in the Formosa question and, for this reason, I want to give you a very brief account of our general attitude toward the various factors that have dictated the course we have taken. You understand, of course, that we have certain groups that are violent in their efforts to get us to take a much stronger, even a truculent position. The number that would like to see us clear out of Formosa is negligible. I know that on your side of the water you have the exact opposite of this situation.

Because the Communists know these facts, there is no question in my mind that one of the principal reasons for their constant pressing on the Asian frontier is the hope of dividing our two countries. I am sure that we, on both sides of the water, can make quite clear that, no matter what may be our differences in approach or even sometimes our differences in important convictions, nothing is ever going to separate us or destroy our unity in opposing Communist aggression.

To Winston Spencer Churchill (Doc#1300; Feb 10, 1955) - The Presidential Papers of Dwight David Eisenhower - eisenhowermemorial.org

First Taiwan Strait Crisis - Wikipedia

***

Never a Dulles moment:

Returning to Washington last week from a grueling, 24,000-mile trip to Formosa, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles got down from an Air Force KC-135 jet transport to face a battery of cameras and microphones. Question: "Did Chiang Kai-shek agree to a reduction of forces on the offshore islands?" Dulles: "We talked about matters far more fundamental than that. That's just a detail."

From the Dulles-Chiang talks on fundamental matters emerged a fundamental result that made Dulles' trip to Formosa a diplomatic achievement of a sort. One nagging hindrance to the Administration's Far Eastern policy is the impression, widespread among the free world's leaders and opinion-shapers, that Nationalist China's Chiang Kai-shek is fanatically bent on invading the mainland at whatever cost, even nuclear world war. In an effort to correct that impression, Dulles got from Chiang a formal declaration renouncing force as the "principal means" of liberating the mainland Chinese.

Formosa Declaration - Time Magazine - Nov 3, 1958.