China's Emergence as a Superpower (till 2014)

[carl]

Lawvol & Dayuhan:

If it comes to abandoning a free nation, if it does come to that, it will be a most remarkable thing. I don't mind getting high sounding even if others roll their eyes when I do, but if the nation of Lincoln were to throw out a nation that has been allied to us and a nation that reflects our values as best as may be approximated in the far east, that would be a huge thing and we wouldn't be much to look at in the mirror anymore. We may get a short term benefit from that but we would have lost something of the spirit that we may never get back again. Not to mention anybody with any sense wouldn't line up with us ever again.

Obviously this is a hypothetical discussion but it is still remarkable that we are having it. Would we be even having the same discussion if the country in question were Australia?

The implicit and explicit backing of the US is the only thing that has kept Taiwan out of the clutches of the CCP, the only thing. The attitude of the US is the critical factor in the state of affairs between the two states. As it changes, so does that state of affairs.

[Backwards Observer]

If it comes to abandoning a free nation, if it does come to that, it will be a most remarkable thing. I don't mind getting high sounding even if others roll their eyes when I do, but if the nation of Lincoln were to throw out a nation that has been allied to us and a nation that reflects our values as best as may be approximated in the far east, that would be a huge thing and we wouldn't be much to look at in the mirror anymore. We may get a short term benefit from that but we would have lost something of the spirit that we may never get back again. Not to mention anybody with any sense wouldn't line up with us ever again.

Carl, if this is the case, why not base some nuclear weapons on Taiwan and start them off with developing their own deterrent program? Surely it wouldn't be a big deal. Galrahn at Information Dissemination is already thinking of flipping a nuke at the Shi Lang.

Assuming she ever gets operational, using what you know of US tactics and capabilities...if you wanted to sink the Chinese aircraft carrier, how would you do it and what would you use? [...] Obviously a nuke could also do it.

How Would You Sink The Shi Lang? - Information Dissemination - April 15, 2011.

[carl]

Carl, if this is the case, why not base some nuclear weapons on Taiwan and start them off with developing their own deterrent program? Surely it wouldn't be a big deal. Galrahn at Information Dissemination is already thinking of flipping a nuke at the Shi Lang.

That would be too strong a step. The CCP would go absolutely ape no matter how compelling the logic of the thing. Taiwan doesn't need our help to make one of those things. They could probably whip one up pretty quick but I doubt they ever would. Besides even if they did, they never could make enough of them to really be a deterrant (sic) given the size disparity between the two states. One of the things that helps keep the peace is the polite fiction, so far, that both places are the same country even though they are not but they someday will be. Nukes on Taiwan would upset the charade.

[Backwards Observer]

That would be too strong a step. The CCP would go absolutely ape no matter how compelling the logic of the thing. Taiwan doesn't need our help to make one of those things. They could probably whip one up pretty quick but I doubt they ever would. Besides even if they did, they never could make enough of them to really be a deterrant (sic) given the size disparity between the two states. One of the things that helps keep the peace is the polite fiction, so far, that both places are the same country even though they are not but they someday will be. Nukes on Taiwan would upset the charade.

People may roll their eyes at my cynicism, but if human nature is anything to go by, the charade will drag on until mainland China becomes a democracy. Then the mainlanders will vote some guy in who promises to reunify Taiwan by force.

[LawVol]

Lawvol & Dayuhan:

If it comes to abandoning a free nation, if it does come to that, it will be a most remarkable thing. I don't mind getting high sounding even if others roll their eyes when I do, but if the nation of Lincoln were to throw out a nation that has been allied to us and a nation that reflects our values as best as may be approximated in the far east, that would be a huge thing and we wouldn't be much to look at in the mirror anymore. We may get a short term benefit from that but we would have lost something of the spirit that we may never get back again. Not to mention anybody with any sense wouldn't line up with us ever again.

I do not argue that I would abandon Taiwan at this time, I only say that if it is in America's interests to do so at some point, I would do so. You may have already made up your mind that sticking with Taiwan no matter what is in America's interests (an admirable position by the way). I prefer to leave room for future developments since I cannot possibly know what the future brings. Again, I would do what is best for America just like the Lincoln you invoke. Below is a quote demonstrating his realist thinking given his desire to do what was in the interests of preserving the Union. He also demonstrates a difference in his personal thinking and his realist thinking.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.

We are a realist thinking nation and so are the others. Slapout's post shows this with respect to Iraq. Idealism just causes problems IMO.

[Ray]

So what's Vietnam, the Philippines,Taiwan,and Malaysia done for the United States lately? I just saw on the news that some Congressman went to Iraq and told their president that since things are going so well over there now they can start paying us back for the war like President Bush said they would. He was asked to leave Iraq! Point being we don't get any respect in the world because we are willing to fight and pay for others people's problems. If China wants to drill of the coast of VIETNAM for oil....hey good for them!

Though dated, may help:

U.S. Strategic and Defense Relationships in the Asia-Pacific Region
January 22, 2007
Bruce Vaughn
Analyst in Southeast and South Asian Affairs
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division

East Asia is rapidly changing, largely due to the rise of China which is fueled
by China’s impressive economic growth. China’s new economic clout is giving it new power and influence in the region. Many Asia-Pacific analysts and observers, both in the region and in the United States, feel that the United States is preoccupied in the Middle East and as a result is not sufficiently focused on the Asia-Pacific at a critical point in the evolution of what may prove to be a new era in Asia.

China is the only power that is presently thought capable of becoming a peer competitor of the United States. To many the overwhelming challenge is the need to try to shape the global and regional geo-strategic and economic environments to encourage and facilitate China’s peaceful and constructive evolution as a great power.

There is concern by some that a policy towards China that assumes China will become a threat to the United States and its interests in Asia will become a self-fulfilling prophesy.

That said, many feel that a strategy that hedges against the possibility that China’s rise is less than peaceful and cooperative is a prudent course of action.....

Some alliances have proven to be more resilient and adaptable in adjusting to evolving challenges than others. Several factors appear to be linked to the durability of America’s alliances in Asia, including common perceptions of threat, shared strategic objectives, diplomatic attention, shared values, and common history.

A better understanding of the disposition of America’s forward deployed force structure, alliance ties, defense partners, and working relationships in Asia in the context of U.S. strategic priorities and shifting geopolitical realities can inform
assessments of the future direction of American strategic posture in the region.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33821.pdf

[Ray]

do not argue that I would abandon Taiwan at this time, I only say that if it is in America's interests to do so at some point, I would do so. You may have already made up your mind that sticking with Taiwan no matter what is in America's interests (an admirable position by the way). I prefer to leave room for future developments since I cannot possibly know what the future brings.

We are a realist thinking nation and so are the others. Slapout's post shows this with respect to Iraq. Idealism just causes problems IMO.

Just the reason why the Third World is chary about any Pact or Alliances with the US.

There is good reasons to suspect that the US will abandon the Third World country with total disregards to the Pact/ Alliance obligations.

If the US is ready to abandon countries that have some understanding with the US at will, then what's the good reason to take umbrage with what Iraq has done? They, I presume, are safeguarding their own interests.

[Backwards Observer]

Jaw jaw better than war war (for now):

Given China's increasing power and economic security, dealing with the Communist nation poses a "big challenge" for the United States, former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said Sunday.

Kissinger: China poses 'big challenge' for U.S. - CNN - June 12, 2011.

***

US Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, chairman of the House of Representatives’ Foreign Affairs Committee, has warned China not to interfere in Taiwan’s presidential election and promised to support Taiwan’s democracy in every way she can.

US lawmaker warns China on Taiwan - Taipei Times - June 13, 2011.

***

BEIJING - A deadly killer jet that can take on the most advanced miliary fighters of the world's sole superpower. A behemoth "ship" under construction that will project the military power of the "Middle Kingdom" further off its coast. An army of cyber hackers ready to do all the havoc on the Internet.

These days, news stories by some Western media about China's military strength tend to play up its increasing size and menacing potential. Some Western observers have tried to hint to readers that something "big and evil" is fast evolving in China.

Crunch myth about China's military threat - China Daily - June 13, 2011.

[Ray]

China will always downplay that it is a threat to any country, far or near.

That is how she has been able to achieve her 'Peaceful Rise'.

Now, it is China to show a bit of flexing her muscle, passing it off as merely a tired arms flayed yawn!

War is not the answer. Containment is!

[Backwards Observer]

China will always downplay that it is a threat to any country, far or near.

That is how she has been able to achieve her 'Peaceful Rise'.

Now, it is China to show a bit of flexing her muscle, passing it off as merely a tired arms flayed yawn!

War is not the answer. Containment is!

You meant "Being on guard!". I understand that now.

[LawVol]

Just the reason why the Third World is chary about any Pact or Alliances with the US.

There is good reasons to suspect that the US will abandon the Third World country with total disregards to the Pact/ Alliance obligations.

If the US is ready to abandon countries that have some understanding with the US at will, then what's the good reason to take umbrage with what Iraq has done? They, I presume, are safeguarding their own interests.

True enough. However, remember that if the US can break alliances, so can other nations. Nations do what they believe to be in their own interests. Iraq is a perfect example. Despite feeding off the American defense department for their security needs for over half a century, and thereby supporting their social programs, some EU nations chose to oppose American intervention in Iraq. Although they certainly made a legal argument (a correct one IMO) to support their opposition, they acted in their interests and used law as a tool for justification. Kosovo shows a willingness to ignore international law when it serves their interests, so we know this opposition wasn't a stand on principle.

Backing out of an alliance or not giving the full measure certainly involves many considerations. The long term ramifications are part of that calculation. However, even considering the fallout, it may still be in our interests to do our own thing. BTW, I never expressed umbrage at what Iraq did in Slapout's reference. However, even if I did it would still be consistent with my argument. I can understand the rationale for another country breaking an "agreement" or acting in contravention to our interests, but I don't have to like it.

[Ray]

Check how Russia and China managed/ manages their unofficial alliances.

You will note the difference and to which side the not powerful Third World would like to align with.

Right now, they want to align with the West. However, if the West is unreliable, then why not seek a reliable friend?

And if they move there, where will the US be?

That is why the US has to ensure that they are reliable.

Who loses most? The US or the Third World countries?

US has missed out on rock solid alliances, inspite of great assistance, because they appear arrogant and they mix with the elite and abandon at the earliest compared to the other so called superpowers.

China's 'friendship' is without strings attached. They make friends with the Devil itself. The US acts pious and behaves otherwise with not only string attached, but slowly push countries into vassalage.

Check out Pakistan, notwithstanding big talk of Pakistan.

[Backwards Observer]

It is not what those countries have done for us lately, it is what they can do for us in the future. Take a look at the map, if we told those countries to go pound sand, they would be forced to make an accommodation with China, most certainly including basing rights for them and none for us. That would make it impossible, impossible to prevail in any kind of conflict with China. That being the case, Japan and South Korea would be forced to go over and the Aussies would mandate Mandarin studies from the second grade onward. And that would just be the beginning.

Two views from Austria, dang, I mean Australia:

THERE is an almost mathematical elegance to Ross Babbage's vitally important new paper, Australia's Strategic Edge in 2030, to be published on Monday.

The veteran defence analyst wants Australia to do to China what China is doing to the US. China recognises that it could never defeat the US in a full-on, force-on-force conflict. But it can make it incredibly costly and dangerous for the US to operate its military in the western Pacific.

China achieves this by adopting "asymmetric" warfare. Asymmetry simply means big versus small. Asymmetric warfare is a way for the weaker party in a conflict to inflict crippling costs on the strong party.

China is doing this to the US through cyber warfare, space warfare, submarines and missiles. The Chinese strategy is called anti-access area denial. It is aimed at destroying US computer-based capabilities through cyber warfare. It is aimed at destroying US satellites through space warfare.

[...]

Already, Australia is in direct range of many Chinese weapons, so the PLA's expansion directly affects the defence of continental Australia.

While Babbage's report is very sobering, it is hardly as if the Americans are asleep while all this Chinese military activity is going on.

The Americans are developing their own air-sea battle plan that would seek to wipe out many of China's capabilities at the start of a conflict.

Time to beat China at its own game - The Australian - Feb 5, 2011.

***

It makes sense for Australia to develop constructive defence engagement with China, as I have long argued. Australian forces are less likely to find themselves confronting Chinese forces (whatever opinion polls might imply) than working alongside them, for instance in counter-piracy or disaster relief operations. So it makes sense for each side to forge a practical understanding of how the other operates.

It is also precisely because of the anxieties about how China will use its power that we ought to get to know the PLA up close. Channels of communication and so-called 'confidence building' measures (CBMs) between the Chinese military and their counterparts in the US, Japan and India are weak to non-existent.

Australia-China Defence ties: Beyond the hype - The Interpreter - April 29, 2011.

[Johannes U]

Gonna be interesting to read about his ideas, views...

Will keep you posted (it's only 500 pages )

[Backwards Observer]

Gonna be interesting to read about his ideas, views...

Will keep you posted (it's only 500 pages )

Dr. Henry the K back in Beijing:

Kissinger's new book offers insights on how the ice was broken in Sino-US relations, reports Li Xing in Washington.

Henry Kissinger is scheduled to arrive in Beijing on Friday for a series of public and private meetings as a guest of the Chinese People's Institute of Foreign Affairs.
He will discuss with his hosts his latest book, On China, which has been touted in the Chinese media and much coveted among the Chinese.

As he summarized after he received a lifetime achievement award from the Asia Society in Washington last week, he attempted to share with the readers his historic analysis of how the Chinese and Americans handle their problems and how "this translated itself into the actual interaction" between the United States and China.

The book "provides us with his insightful views on Sino-US relations over the past 40 years, including his meetings with four generations of Chinese leaders", Zhang Yesui, China's ambassador to the US, said during the Asia Society event.

A highlight of the trip will be his meeting with a celebrated party of old friends - and children of his old friends - to recall the memorable 48 hours he spent in Beijing in July 1971 on his secret mission to break the ice in China-US relations.

Among the many memoirs are some by a small circle of Chinese and Americans who worked to make the visit not only a success but also to initiate changes that have transformed the world. Numerous Chinese and American journalists have also come up with their accounts to unravel the "mysteries" surrounding the events that led to the secret trip and US President Richard M. Nixon's historic visit to China in February 1972.

Unraveling mysteries behind Nixon's 1972 China visit - China Daily - June 24, 2011.

[Dayuhan]

Obviously this is a hypothetical discussion but it is still remarkable that we are having it. Would we be even having the same discussion if the country in question were Australia?

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.

The implicit and explicit backing of the US is the only thing that has kept Taiwan out of the clutches of the CCP, the only thing. The attitude of the US is the critical factor in the state of affairs between the two states. As it changes, so does that state of affairs.

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?

[Dayuhan]

http://www.sunstar.com.ph/manila/loc...-treaty-160990

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.

If in their time of need, the US does not show some sort of solidarity with them, then such Pacts with the US would remain suspect and it would not be surprising if such countries wonder if there is any guarantee that the US will honour its commitment or fight shy that it would go against US' interests.

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.

On the other hand, China, without doing as much as the US, is assisting Pakistan in key areas of concerns, riding at times against the tide of international opinion. It is obvious, that China is being perceived as 'a friend in need, is a friend indeed'. This is not lost of the Third World countries.

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.

Observe the situation of Taiwan. One never knows when, where and which side the cat will jump. A sense of deep insecurity. It is not material whether there is One China policy or Two China policy. The US had always charged itself with the defence of Taiwan, come what may. Now, it is ‘iffy’.

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.

Philippines has been left on the limb. I am not too sure if they have a Defence Pact with the US or not. It is obvious they feel that they have been let down if one goes by statement of its government.

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.

Thar she Blows!

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.

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.

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.

[carl]

There are a lot of hypotheticals in this discussion. I think it useful nonetheless for the same reason that playing the "what if" game is useful for individuals. If you look far ahead at what may happen you might be more inclined to do the little things now that might keep what may happen from happening.

One of those little things is sailing around with the Filipinos and rattling sabres. If we were to let fear of empowering aggressive Chinese elements keep us from doing that, that would be the greater danger. They are acting quite aggressive on their own hook now. Looks like probing for weakness to me. If they find it, maybe they go further.

It is true that it would be economically foolish for China to attack Taiwan and it will get increasingly so as the years pass. But how many wars have been started in the face of economic ruin? Lots. That doesn't seem to matter much when emotions run high. In that case, the only thing that keeps Taiwan out of the clutches of the CCP is us.

I do agree with you that continued Chinese prosperity is the best thing for all in the long run. Our problem, I think, is keeping the those who want a conquest on their cv down until that dawns on all the senior Chinese leadership.

I think one reason nobody comments on Chinese internal politics is that no one knows what the heck they are. Bob Woodward isn't invited in and the CCP pr dept isn't a big help. Who actually has any idea what transpires?

[Backwards Observer]

A view from an Indian analyst:

It is extremely unlikely, but let’s say the fragrance of Jasmine flowers wafts across the Great Wall and perfumes China’s Han heartlands. A post-revolution China could take many forms, but let’s say that it turns into a democracy while retaining its existing international boundaries. Let’s set aside these two big “if's” for a moment and ask what such a scenario would mean for India.

Nitin Pai: What if China becomes a democracy? - Business Standard (India) - March 21, 2011.

(hat tip to the men from the intrepid Interpreter)

[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.