U.S. Challenges China on Disputed Islands

[deepak75]

wishful thinking for India. It seems that many members here think China is a threat to India and that any other country opposing China must be a good thing (even optimistic thinking include that they will look to India for leadership)

Truth is China is not a threat to India and never has been. The 1962 stab in the back is a lie and the obsession and fear is very much one sided. China is ready for a settled border and better relations as soon as India can make up its mind.

You got the wrong drift. When I suggest an inclusive solution, I do not intend to say that it will weaken China. On the contrary my desire is to see a stronger and more prosperous China because that will ultimately over the coming years give rise to a more democratic system within China which will be much better for all including India. Becuase with collective will at work, such grandiose claims need not arise.

Re the threat that India percieves from China, I have to disagree with you. It is very real. It was more military earlier and even though 62 was the only direct confrontation but indirectly there is a way via Pakistan to this day. However, increasingly, it is turning more in to an economic equation and the threat remains alive.

But, to share your optimism, I see no reason why both nations even when working for their own good can come around their differences and get together. It is just a matter of pressure points. For India, all these years China has found Pakistan to be a nice, willing and complying pressure point, for the South Koreans, that job is done by the North Koreans for China, for Vietnam, the Chinese have always had Cambodia, for Thailand, Myanmaar fit in the scheme of things very well for China.

However, now it is just a matter of some new pressure points arising of a different nature........

 

[Chinaownseverything]

Quite logical. It is also called Irrendentism I fear. And going by that logic, Kublai Khan ensured that Mongolia should always claim all of China.

Now getting back to the real world, the more China pushes Vietnam, more boldness will be shown by other nations having a stake in this dispute. So it is better to settle this by being fair in the current parlance of the region and not laying a claim over all and sundry because someone's Daddy owned it.

Kublai Khan didn't take a part of China and give it to another country.

France took the Spratly from China and gave it to Vietnam.

Should a thief not return what he stole?

 

[CardSharp]

You got the wrong drift. When I suggest an inclusive solution, I do not intend to say that it will weaken China. On the contrary my desire is to see a stronger and more prosperous China because that will ultimately over the coming years give rise to a more democratic system within China which will be much better for all including India. Becuase with collective will at work, such grandiose claims need not arise.

Re the threat that India percieves from China, I have to disagree with you. It is very real. It was more military earlier and even though 62 was the only direct confrontation but indirectly there is a way via Pakistan to this day. However, increasingly, it is turning more in to an economic equation and the threat remains alive.

But, to share your optimism, I see no reason why both nations even when working for their own good can come around their differences and get together. It is just a matter of pressure points. For India, all these years China has found Pakistan to be a nice, willing and complying pressure point, for the South Koreans, that job is done by the North Koreans for China, for Vietnam, the Chinese have always had Cambodia, for Thailand, Myanmaar fit in the scheme of things very well for China.

However, now it is just a matter of some new pressure points arising of a different nature........

I won't say you don't have your points, but you are over-stating Chinese contrivance in the region. While you're probably right w.r.t. pakistan and India, the other pressure points are tentative (in Cambodia's case) and of dubious value (in NK's case)

For better or worse China as saw itself as the beneficent big brother of asia for thousands of years and it has a natural tendency to try and assume the role (though this time to a much lesser degree).

...ummm I think you're probably right about cooperation too, there's a hell of a lot of potential in asia if petty regional conflicts can be resolved. But as the EU demonstrates, it is hardly easy.

Also can you elaborate on new pressure points, I don't quite get your meaning.

Vietnam should stay away from China.

First Vietnam is China's closest competition in the region, so there's absolutely no reason for China to be playing fair with Vietnam. Even ignoring all the history.

Second Chinese style urbanization is not for Vietnam. Almost all manufacturing and infrastructure is centered around Ho Chi Minh and 80% is controlled by the state. This model is working for them. "Infrastructure" help from China would mean opening many coal plants and displacing the rural class, creating a urban elite and sending tens of millions of displaced farmers into cities looking for work. It would mean putting farmers out of work in favor of mechanization. China can deal with this because it is far richer and more populous, but Vietnam could not.

I see no advantage for Vietnam turning into a swath of factories producing toys for Americans rather than continuing on its path currently. Which is macroeconomic stability rather than rapid growth. Even though the government is focusing on macroeconomics, growth is still near double digits.

Christ I was talking about Vietnam's export business and what I meant by infrastructure is roads, rail, deep water ports, etc not kicking Vietnamese babies.

Vietnam is not really big enough to threaten China's trade so why not help increase regional prosperity for the benefit of all.

 

[huzihaidao12]

The South China Sea, in fact, China has put forward the "shelving disputes and joint development" in 20 years ago. Other countries also have agreed. However, 20 years later, there is no common development of all countries and China, but rather to find Western companies, China's interests are not given any respect. In this case, we will propose our own solution. Of course, all controversial national agreement is the best, if not, we can only defend our own interests.

 

[TorontoNoctis]

Vietnam is not really big enough to threaten China's trade so why not help increase regional prosperity for the benefit of all.

Well it's simple; they can get a better deal from the USA. Simply look at the numbers now and see why.

Why have a big brother who can reduce your foreign aid to zero in a heartbeat for any possible reason, when you can have welfare office that will only cut your foreign aid off if you make it onto the state sponsored terrorism list? And then, with that aid, you can hire this needed expertise with no string attached other than money.

 

[gambit]

LOL well the USA did lose to North Vietnamese and Chinese soldiers in the Vietnam war. That "loss" is a historical fact.

You mean your version of 'historical fact'. More like 'hysterical fact'. But here is the truth as admitted by the Vietnamese themselves...

Why the latest good news from Iraq doesn't matter. - By Phillip Carter - Slate Magazine

Summers told Tu, "You know, you never defeated us on the battlefield." Tu replied, in a phrase that perfectly captured the American misunderstanding of the Vietnam War, "That may be so, but it is also irrelevant."

So if you are willing to divide the Sino-Viet conflict into parallel political and military histories, be intellectually honest enough to be consistent.

 

[huzihaidao12]

About the Vietnam War, the key is the strategic goal
U.S. strategic objectives:

Prevent communism failure

Occupied Vietnam then add military bases in South Korea and Japan to form a military encirclement of China. failure


Even consume a lot of strength, caused the depression in the United States. Made by Soviet military forces in 70 years to catch up. Of course, this is also the co-operation between China and the United States the opportunity again.

 

[huzihaidao12]

China's strategic goal

To avoid the Soviet Union and Vietnam, both by the threat, and therefore in Vietnam "a lesson" is necessary ,this Goal of the war is not occupation, China is not so much money wasted on the occupation, the only "a lesson." Overall, 1979 and "10-year war" to a great blow to Vietnam's military forces to achieve this objective. Externally, the creation of a favorable external environment, Southeast Asia and the United States is very pleased to see that Vietnam was combat.

 

[Thomas]

You mean your version of 'historical fact'. More like 'hysterical fact'. But here is the truth as admitted by the Vietnamese themselves...

Why the latest good news from Iraq doesn't matter. - By Phillip Carter - Slate Magazine

So if you are willing to divide the Sino-Viet conflict into parallel political and military histories, be intellectually honest enough to be consistent.

Nice insight concerning Vietnam. The doom and gloom Iraq assessment sure turned out to be wrong though.

 

[gambit]

Nice insight concerning Vietnam. The doom and gloom Iraq assessment sure turned out to be wrong though.

You see anyone admit he was wrong about we invaded Iraq 'for oil'?

 

[huzihaidao12]

You see anyone admit he was wrong about we invaded Iraq 'for oil'?

Wrong? Look to the disappearance of the oil account, and the Iraqi oil law.

 

[huzihaidao12]

Of course, the U.S. war in Iraq is the real purpose of the further control of the Middle East and control the power of international oil prices, of course, also increase the wealth of the Bush family.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Have they found WMD's yet?

Or "Iraqi ties" to 9/11?

Which were the two reasons they gave for invading Iraq, resulting in the deaths of over one million innocent Iraqi civilians?

And still no WMD's?

Oh well... have they at least found Osama Bin-Laden in Afghanistan at least?

 

[Hafizzz]

If China can claim the islands in south china sea and seas around it then it makes it harder for USN to be near Hainan.

USA is afraid that one day she might have to leave Asia for good.....

Top thinker says China may 'push the US out of Asia'
Top thinker says China may 'push the US out of Asia' | The Australian

ONE of the US's leading strategic thinkers has warned Australia that over the next 30 years, China would seek to dominate Asia.

The warning came from John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, who said China's rise would not be peaceful.

At the same time, Professor Mearsheimer said the US faced defeat on its four main challenges in the wider Middle East -- he predicted it would fail in Afghanistan and Iraq, that Iran would acquire nuclear weapons and there would be no "two-state" solution for Israel and the Palestinians.

"If China grows in the next 30 years as it has over the last 30 years, it will seek to dominate Asia the way America dominates the western hemisphere," the professor said at Sydney University.

"If China turns into a greater Hong Kong, it will try to push the United States out of Asia and develop its own Munroe Doctrine" -- a reference to US hegemonic assertion in the Americas.

Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.

End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.

"I think that China cannot rise peacefully and that this is largely pre-determined."

A foreign policy realist, Professor Mearsheimer opposed the Iraq war, is a fierce critic of the Israeli lobby in the US and a sceptic about American decline. He will deliver the annual Michael Hintze Lecture at Sydney University tomorrow. His host, Sydney University's Alan Dupont, described Professor Mearsheimer as "America's boldest and perhaps most controversial thinker in the field of international relations".

Professor Mearsheimer believes the US and its Asian allies, including Australia, will follow a strategy of "containment" and of "balancing" China in Asia. He says there is no difference between these concepts -- thus dismissing the formula that underpins Australia's policy towards China.

Professor Mearsheimer says that containment of China "is desirable from an American point of view". On Australia's potential conflict as a US ally and China's economic partner, he predicted we would develop closer economic ties with China but support the US to contain China's power.

The presence of nuclear weapons, he argued, meant there would be "no shooting war" between the US and China.

"I think in Afghanistan and Iraq, America will be seen to lose both wars," he said. It was inevitable that American withdrawal "would leave a mess behind" in both countries. In the northern autumn last year, "it was clear Afghanistan was not a winnable war yet President (Barack) Obama upped the ante".

Professor Mearsheimer said there was "no sign" of a two-state solution in the Middle East. The alternative of a Greater Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu's real policy, risked the future of Israel as a state: "Most Americans and most American Jews do not appreciate how much trouble Israel is in.

"I am in favour of a much more prudent US," he said. "I think it important that the US retain its primacy." That meant grasping the limits to military power, avoiding invasions of Arab and Islamic nations and moving to balance the rise of China.

Professor Mearsheimer says that containment of China "is desirable from an American point of view".

 

[Nomenclature]

The thing about American containment strategies against China is, containing Chinese strategic influences will ensure American to continue to shoulder the responsibilities of maintaining the world order and maritime peace without China's help. It can not ask China's help for maintaining geo-strategic stability at the same time denying the Chinese quest for geo-strategic influence.

That's not a problem for the U.S right now. However after 20 or so years when the size of Chinese economy overtakes that of the U.S, and especially if the world begins to adopt yuan as another reserve currency or even begins to price oil in both yuan and dollar. Will the U.S still be willing to foot the bill for protecting sea lines of communication and world order when it's no longer its greatest economic beneficiary?

That's the problem of trying to strategically contain a country with partners who have bigger economic relationships with your enemy than with you. You can't do anything to seriously harm your enemy's economy because that will ruin your allies' economies as well and hence unacceptable to your allies. In fact you'll be forced to defend much of your enemy's interests because they're shared mutually with your allies.

I suspect the U.S will eventually grow tired of this game (if they ever decide to pursue the containment policy in earnest) and who knows, may be by then China will be so used to letting the U.S run the world that it don't want the Americans to stop. Afterall, the Chinese attitude toward the outside world had long been 'Our way is right. Your way is wrong. But we don't really care and you can all rot in hell'.