China's Emergence as a Superpower (till 2014)

[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]

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!

[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.

[Backwards Observer]

"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." - Dwight D. Eisenhower, Feb 1955.

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. - Time, Nov 1958.

I think there may be enough evidence here to make a case that Eisenhower was a communist sympathiser and John Foster Dulles was in reality a 'peace' hog swilling at the trough of appeasement. I could be wrong, however.

[Dayuhan]

Even erstwhile enemies, who should have never approached the US, are approaching the US. It would not have been possible if there were no favourable diplomatic exchanges.

Why shouldn't "erstwhile enemies" approach each other? The US has quite congenial relations with a number of erstwhile enemies, and has been getting on reasonably well with the Vietnamese for some time. Nothing very odd or unusual about it.

[Backwards Observer]

China is a very careful country. It will not back down, but will use the prevailing parameters to calm the situation without 'losing face', and then will seek opportunities when it is in a position to seize the initiative.

Ray, long-term, how would you imagine the best-case scenario for the China question?

***

'One China idea' up for discussion: Ma

MUTUAL NON-DENIAL:The DPP said the ‘one China, two governments’ proposal ran counter to Ma’s 2008 pledge that he would not ‘discuss unification’ within his term (By Mo Yan-chih and Vincent Y. Chao / Staff Reporters)

The latest proposal that Taiwan and China function as separate governments within a “one China” framework could be up for discussion, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) said, sparking concern within the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) about political negotiations across the Taiwan Strait.

'One China' idea up for discussion: Ma - Taipei Times - June 25, 2011.

***

‘One China, two governments’ rejected

AGREEING TO DISAGREE: DPP lawmakers said the Ma administration’s support for the ‘one China’ principle had opened the door to new interpretations of ‘one China’ (By Vincent Y. Chao / Staff Reporter)

A new proposal to bring Taiwan and China together as a single country, but with separate central governments, has failed to gain much traction with lawmakers.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators opposed the idea published by a Chinese academic with the US-based Brookings Institution, a public policy think tank, earlier this month.

'One China, two governments' rejected - Taipei Times - June 24, 2011.

[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!