China's Emergence as a Superpower (till 2014)

[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.

Death by a thousand cuts...

I suggest that (confirmed by your reply) the Chinese have chosen the right strategy.

None of the moves they make will warrant (as seen by most) action to be taken.

Then every now and again they play the "two steps forward, one step back" routine which will be misread as a victory in Washington.

Further when the old enemy (Vietnam) starts looking for protection against China from the US one presumes that their old ally (Russia) has cried off and would give an indication of how serious the problem is.

I suggest that the turning point will come when the US id "forced to sell out Taiwan". Can't be too far away now.

[AdamG]

Death by a thousand cuts...

I suggest that (confirmed by your reply) the Chinese have chosen the right strategy.

None of the moves they make will warrant (as seen by most) action to be taken.

Then every now and again they play the "two steps forward, one step back" routine which will be misread as a victory in Washington.

Further when the old enemy (Vietnam) starts looking for protection against China from the US one presumes that their old ally (Russia) has cried off and would give an indication of how serious the problem is.

I suggest that the turning point will come when the US id "forced to sell out Taiwan". Can't be too far away now*.

Excellent analysis.
*Probably Spring of 2013.

[carl]

Look for the connected media to start floating "strategic analysis" that question the importance of Taiwan. They will follow it up with stories portraying the Nationalists as corrupt, brutal, untrustworthy and unwilling to accede to reasonable requests by us as a method to defuse a crisis even though we will make guarantees. etc. etc. The upshot is, if it happens, there will be a pr campaign first.

[jmm99]

Cam Ranh Bay - 25 year lease (1979-2004) - terminated 2 May 2002 - open for bidding.

As to Taiwan, 45 senators tell Obama: Sell Taiwan some F-16s already! (at FP, by Josh Rogin, May 26, 2011) (an interesting Senatorial coalition):

Unless the United States sells Taiwan some new fighter jets, the military balance between Taiwan and China will continue to spiral out of control to the detriment of both Taiwanese and U.S. security, 45 U.S. senators wrote on Thursday to President Barack Obama.
....
The letter was spearheaded by Sens. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and James Inhofe (R-OK), the two senators who resurrected the Senate Taiwan Caucus in January just in time for the visit of Chinese President Hu Jintao. But it was also signed by Sens. Mark Kirk (R-IL) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT), the two leaders of the brand-new China Working Group, which was created to build ties between Congress and Beijing.
....
But there's little prospect the Obama administration will approve the sale of F-16s to Taiwan anytime soon. Its decision to sell Taiwan $6.2 billion of arms in early 2010 provoked a reaction from Beijing that scuttled U.S.-China military-to-military cooperation for over a year -- and that sale didn't even include any F-16s.
....
Gates told the Chinese that the arms sales would continue, as they have for decades, under the Taiwan Relations Act, a U.S. law that mandates that the United States support Taiwan's self-defense.

The Taiwan Relations Act has a title referencing JMA's most favorite US Pres:

Full title - An act to help maintain peace, security, and stability in the Western Pacific and to promote the foreign policy of Jimmy Carter by authorizing the continuation of commercial, cultural, and other relations between the people of the United States and the people on Taiwan, and for other purposes.

And indeed, the US will -

"consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including by boycotts or embargoes, a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States"

which in DiploSpeak says "we ain't committed to do a damn thing".

Pres. Carter unilaterally abrogated the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty, which led to the SCOTUS case of Goldwater v. Carter (Barry lost):

Holding - The issue at hand, whether President Carter could unilaterally break a defense treaty with the Republic of China without Senate approval, was essentially a political question and could not be reviewed by the court, as Congress had not issued a formal opposition. The case was dismissed.

The net result is an intentional "strategic ambiguity".

If the US and China get into an armed conflict over Taiwan, the assets of China and its citizens (including US bonds) are subject to seizure under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act:

The IEEPA authorizes the president to declare the existence of an "unusual and extraordinary threat... to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States" that originates "in whole or substantial part outside the United States." It further authorizes the president, after such a declaration, to block transactions and freeze assets to deal with the threat. In the event of an actual attack on the United States, the president can also confiscate property connected with a country, group, or person that aided in the attack.

We did it to the Germans in both World Wars - but, of course, there has to be a will to use both military and political powers.

Absent a will to defend Taiwan (legally absent since 1980), Carl's scenario - "Look for the connected media to start floating ...." seems plausible. Does that mean I should be watching MSNBC for clues ?

Regards

Mike

[carl]

Check out what the connected policy think tanks promulgate too.

[Bill Moore]

Posted by JMM,

The net result is an intentional "strategic ambiguity".

I think this is appropriate at this time, it is somewhat challenging to develop a counter strategy against an ambiguous strategy. We don't need to draw lines in the sand, just be postured to respond in a manner of our chosing based on the situation and our interests.

If the US and China get into an armed conflict over Taiwan, the assets of China and its citizens (including US bonds) are subject to seizure under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act:

Are economies are so intertwined I don't see this as possible without an unacceptable retaliation. How many Americans live and work in China now? How many assets do U.S. companies have in China?

Posted by JMA,

Death by a thousand cuts...

I suggest that (confirmed by your reply) the Chinese have chosen the right strategy.

None of the moves they make will warrant (as seen by most) action to be taken.

Rather than the sexy sounding death by a thousand cuts, it two nations maneuvering for strategic advantage. You seem to think that China is getting it right and we're getting it wrong, but the fact that other countries are turning to us because they're concerned about Chinese aggression actually plays in our favor.

I think we are taking action on the diplomatic front, and I'm not sure what other action you think we need to take at this time? What has China done exactly in your view that requires us to take more action? What action should we take? Cost/benefit?

China has a lot of internal troubles, their foreign policy is clumsy, and yes they are modernizing their military and becoming more assertive, but I suspect we are also applying the strategy of a thousand cuts against them. This is normal big powers jockeying for influence and advantage, but nothing to date is cause for war. Will there be a war in the future with China? Only time will tell, but I do not believe it something that is predestined. Will there be another war? As the ancient Greeks said, "only the dead have seen the end of war."

[davidbfpo]

When I last looked relations between RoC and PRC had relaxed. There is considerable RoC investment in PRC and significantly a large physical presence in PRC - in the hundreds of thousands. Less certain grounds now, I am sure there are student exchanges. Maybe not direct flights. The offshore islands garrisons have shrunk and the "theatre" of conflict has gone - loudspeakers etc.

Diplomatically there remains some competition, notably over recognition by small countries; to my knowledge in the Caribbean, for example a cricket stadium for Grenada where RoC said no and PRC said yes if you recognise us.

In their own way the two China's have evolved a relationship that works, each aspires to different national goals, they make money and they don't kill each other.

Now does RoC need the reassurance - however weak - of US support in a crisis with PRC over some now unforeseen matter?

[jmm99]

We seize - Chinese investment in US: $2 trln and counting (Mar 2, 2011).

They seize - US investment in China drops 28% (Updated: 2011-05-18):

US investment from January to April decreased to $1.03 billion and the number of US firms setting up in China also fell by 3.85 percent to 475.

Net US over China seizures (in case of a shooting war) - 2 trillion +.

Regards

Mike

[AdamG]

Carl, maybe you are right but what I thought was most interesting was the concept of a self sustaining city.....what exactly does that mean? Invasion by we(China) have a better idea on how to run things.

They're guided by a signal in the heavens
They're guided by this birthmark on their skin
They're guided by the beauty of their weapons
First they take Boise, then they take Detroit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAVDgUnmX1E

- with apologies to Leonard Cohen.

This month, NPR is examining the many ways China is expanding its reach in the world — through investments, infrastructure, military power and more.

When the United States took over from Britain as the predominant world power 100 years ago, the transition was like one between brothers — or cousins, at least. And the two countries remain close allies to this day. The rise of China in relation to U.S. predominance presents a somewhat different challenge — with decades of sometimes outright hostility and an ongoing fractious relationship.

As it reemerges as a world power, the question is: Is China's awakening to be welcomed — or feared?

http://www.npr.org/2011/06/06/136889...-hug-the-world