What's new

Why China and America are Headed Toward a Catastrophic Clash

Zarvan

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
54,470
Reaction score
87
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
n-CHINESE-FIGHTER-JETS-large570.jpg
China Military Online

This article also appears in The Interpreter, the journal of the Lowy Institute in Australia.
Many people find it hard to understand why China is acting the way it is in the East and South China Seas. What does Beijing hope to achieve by alienating its neighbors and undermining regional stability?
Let me suggest an answer: China is trying to build what President Xi Jinping calls "a new model of great power relations." To understand how this might be the aim of Beijing's actions, we have to recognize that under his "new model," Xi wants China to wield much more power and influence in Asia than it has for the past few centuries. These things are inherently zero-sum, so for China to have more power and influence, America must have less. This is what Xi and his colleagues are trying to achieve.
Their reasoning is simple enough. They know that America's position in Asia is built on its network of alliances and partnerships with many of China's neighbors. They believe that weakening these relationships is the easiest way to weaken U.S. regional power. And they know that, beneath the flowery diplomatic phrases, the bedrock of these alliances and partnerships is the confidence America's Asian friends have that America is able and willing to protect them from China's power.
So the easiest way for Beijing to weaken Washington's power in Asia is to undermine this confidence. And the easiest way to do that is for Beijing to press those friends and allies hard on issues in which America's own interests are not immediately engaged -- like a string of maritime disputes in which the U.S. has no direct stake.
By using direct armed pressure in these disputes, China makes its neighbors more eager for U.S. military support, and at the same time makes America less willing to give it, because of the clear risk of a direct U.S.-China clash. In other words, by confronting America's friends with force, China confronts America with the choice between deserting its friends and fighting China. Beijing is betting that, faced with this choice, America will back off and leave its allies and friends unsupported. This will weaken America's alliances and partnerships, undermine U.S. power in Asia, and enhance China's power.
This view of China's motives explains its recent conduct.
Ever since President Obama announced the "pivot," China has tested U.S. willingness to support its allies over the Scarborough Shoals and Senkaku/Daioyu disputes. Until his Asian trip last month, Obama seemed inclined to step back from America's commitments, but his bold words in Tokyo and Manila suggest he has recovered his resolve to stand firm.
Now we can expect China to test this newly-recovered resolve by applying more pressure in the same places or elsewhere. And that is what Beijing is doing today in the waters off Vietnam. It is calling Obama's bluff. Expect more pressure against Manila and Tokyo soon.
Of course this carries risks for China. It does not want to fight America, so it must be confident in the judgment that America will back down and desert its friends rather than engage in conflict with China, even if backing down badly weakens the U.S. position in Asia. This confidence reflects two key judgments by China's leaders.
First, they believe that China's new anti-access/area denial capabilities can deny America a quick and easy victory in an maritime clash in the East Asian littoral waters. They have been reassured by America's own Air-Sea Battle doctrine that the U.S. knows it cannot prevail in these waters without launching a major campaign of strikes against Chinese territory. Such strikes would obviously risk a major escalation which might not stop below the nuclear threshold. So China's leaders think their U.S. counterparts understand that a war with China today is one that America could not be confident of either winning or limiting.
Second, Beijing believes the balance of resolve is on China's side. Washington clearly wants to preserve its role in Asia, but Beijing is even more determined to win power at the U.S.' expense. China's conduct suggests that the leadership in Beijing believes Washington understands this imbalance of resolve. That makes the Chinese confident that U.S. leaders will not assume that China would back down first in a crisis.
The idea that China might believe these things comes as a surprise to many outside China, including, one suspects, many in Washington. U.S. policy towards China, including the pivot itself, is based on contrary assumptions. The consensus is that Beijing is not really serious about challenging U.S. leadership in Asia because it is simply not willing to risk a confrontation with America which Beijing's leaders must know they would lose, and they do not care enough about expanding China's role in Asia to take that risk.
If that's true, then China's conduct is clearly foolish. But before assuming that the Chinese leaders are fools, we would be wise to wonder whether they really do believe what Washington assumes they believe. I'm pretty sure they do not.
Asia today therefore carries the seeds of a truly catastrophic episode of mutual misperception. Both Washington and China are steadily upping the stakes in their rivalry as China's provocations of US friends and allies become more flagrant and America's commitments to support them become more categorical.
Both believe they can do this with impunity because both believe the other will back down to avoid a clash. There is a disconcertingly high chance that they are both wrong.
Someone needs to change the nature of the game to avert the risk of disaster.
MORE:

China Sea DisputesChina American RelationsChina NewsEast China SeaEast China Sea DisputeSouth China SeaForeign PolicyChinese American RelationsChina Foreign PolicyChina u.s. RelationsChina America RelationsChinaSouth China Sea Dispute

Why China and America are Headed Toward a Catastrophic Clash | Hugh White

@Aeronaut @Luftwaffe @Kaan @mafiya @Chak Bamu @Rashid Mahmood
 
.
America has a "mutual defence treaty" with the Philippines, yet they did not stop us from seizing the Scarborough shoal in 2012. They "conveniently forgot" about their mutual defence treaty for that incident.

America promised to protect Ukraine's borders in 1994, in exchange for Ukraine giving up nukes. Now Crimea is with Russia.

America has a "mutual defence treaty" with South Korea, yet North Korea constantly attacks South Korea with lethal force, even sinking a South Korean Naval ship with over a hundred people on board. Not to mention building nukes and threatening to nuke both SK and America.

America drew a "red line" over chemical weapons use in Syria. The red line was crossed many times, with zero consequences.

The allies of the USA are watching all of this very closely, especially the tension in Ukraine. America has shown they are not willing to fight to uphold their promises, and who can blame them. Which American wants to fight a nuclear war over Ukraine?
 
Last edited:
.
'murica and china are intrinsically intertwined economically. nobody is going to war. don't buy the stupid media hype.. :D
 
.
'murica and china are intrinsically intertwined economically. nobody is going to war. don't buy the stupid media hype.. :D

On the other hand, America and Russia are NOT intertwined economically.

There won't be any war there either.
 
.
If there's an actual full out war between any of the strong nations it will mean human extinction. The war will eventually lead to a nuclear and thus = death.
 
.
Do not fear. Our 3000 nuclear warheads will make our enemies peaceful again :china:
 
.
If there's an actual full out war between any of the strong nations it will mean human extinction. The war will eventually lead to a nuclear and thus = death.

Most of us rational people know that. Unfortunately, we have some here who think nuclear war is like a video game.
 
.
America has a "mutual defence treaty" with the Philippines, yet they did not stop us from seizing the Scarborough shoal in 2012. They "conveniently forgot" about their mutual defence treaty for that incident.

America promised to protect Ukraine's borders in 1994, in exchange for Ukraine giving up nukes. Now Crimea is with Russia.

America has a "mutual defence treaty" with South Korea, yet North Korea constantly attacks South Korea with lethal force, even sinking a South Korean Naval ship with over a hundred people on board. Not to mention building nukes and threatening to nuke both SK and America.

America drew a "red line" over chemical weapons use in Syria. The red line was crossed many times, with zero consequences.

The allies of the USA are watching all of this very closely, especially the tension in Ukraine. America has shown they are not willing to fight to uphold their promises, and who can blame them. Which American wants to fight a nuclear war over Ukraine?

Isn't that nice. :D

When USA tries to enforce defense pacts, it is the big, evil bully. When it exercises restraints, it is derided as a weakling in decay.

The fact is that US policies use force only when absolutely necessary, and not where other, softer means will help matters.
 
.
They aren't and they can't. They ate so dependent on each other that if either dies the other will die automatically.
 
.
US was no where to be seen when Pakistan needed it the most despite alliances. US will only get involved for its own interests as they don't give two hoots about Phillipines or Taiwan.

China needs to couple these tactics with slow,long and sustained pressure on US's puppets with a little bit of economic and military arms twisting. Boil the frog at a low temprature. Uncle sam has no spare cash for an ugly war for a bunch of rice producing islands with a flourishing sex tourism industries.
 
. .
If U.S. treats China as friend, it will get China as friend.

However, if U.S. treats China as enemy, it will get China as enemy.

It is up to U.S., not China.
n-CHINESE-FIGHTER-JETS-large570.jpg
China Military Online



This article also appears in The Interpreter, the journal of the Lowy Institute in Australia.
Many people find it hard to understand why China is acting the way it is in the East and South China Seas. What does Beijing hope to achieve by alienating its neighbors and undermining regional stability?
Let me suggest an answer: China is trying to build what President Xi Jinping calls "a new model of great power relations." To understand how this might be the aim of Beijing's actions, we have to recognize that under his "new model," Xi wants China to wield much more power and influence in Asia than it has for the past few centuries. These things are inherently zero-sum, so for China to have more power and influence, America must have less. This is what Xi and his colleagues are trying to achieve.
Their reasoning is simple enough. They know that America's position in Asia is built on its network of alliances and partnerships with many of China's neighbors. They believe that weakening these relationships is the easiest way to weaken U.S. regional power. And they know that, beneath the flowery diplomatic phrases, the bedrock of these alliances and partnerships is the confidence America's Asian friends have that America is able and willing to protect them from China's power.
So the easiest way for Beijing to weaken Washington's power in Asia is to undermine this confidence. And the easiest way to do that is for Beijing to press those friends and allies hard on issues in which America's own interests are not immediately engaged -- like a string of maritime disputes in which the U.S. has no direct stake.
By using direct armed pressure in these disputes, China makes its neighbors more eager for U.S. military support, and at the same time makes America less willing to give it, because of the clear risk of a direct U.S.-China clash. In other words, by confronting America's friends with force, China confronts America with the choice between deserting its friends and fighting China. Beijing is betting that, faced with this choice, America will back off and leave its allies and friends unsupported. This will weaken America's alliances and partnerships, undermine U.S. power in Asia, and enhance China's power.
This view of China's motives explains its recent conduct.
Ever since President Obama announced the "pivot," China has tested U.S. willingness to support its allies over the Scarborough Shoals and Senkaku/Daioyu disputes. Until his Asian trip last month, Obama seemed inclined to step back from America's commitments, but his bold words in Tokyo and Manila suggest he has recovered his resolve to stand firm.
Now we can expect China to test this newly-recovered resolve by applying more pressure in the same places or elsewhere. And that is what Beijing is doing today in the waters off Vietnam. It is calling Obama's bluff. Expect more pressure against Manila and Tokyo soon.
Of course this carries risks for China. It does not want to fight America, so it must be confident in the judgment that America will back down and desert its friends rather than engage in conflict with China, even if backing down badly weakens the U.S. position in Asia. This confidence reflects two key judgments by China's leaders.
First, they believe that China's new anti-access/area denial capabilities can deny America a quick and easy victory in an maritime clash in the East Asian littoral waters. They have been reassured by America's own Air-Sea Battle doctrine that the U.S. knows it cannot prevail in these waters without launching a major campaign of strikes against Chinese territory. Such strikes would obviously risk a major escalation which might not stop below the nuclear threshold. So China's leaders think their U.S. counterparts understand that a war with China today is one that America could not be confident of either winning or limiting.
Second, Beijing believes the balance of resolve is on China's side. Washington clearly wants to preserve its role in Asia, but Beijing is even more determined to win power at the U.S.' expense. China's conduct suggests that the leadership in Beijing believes Washington understands this imbalance of resolve. That makes the Chinese confident that U.S. leaders will not assume that China would back down first in a crisis.
The idea that China might believe these things comes as a surprise to many outside China, including, one suspects, many in Washington. U.S. policy towards China, including the pivot itself, is based on contrary assumptions. The consensus is that Beijing is not really serious about challenging U.S. leadership in Asia because it is simply not willing to risk a confrontation with America which Beijing's leaders must know they would lose, and they do not care enough about expanding China's role in Asia to take that risk.
If that's true, then China's conduct is clearly foolish. But before assuming that the Chinese leaders are fools, we would be wise to wonder whether they really do believe what Washington assumes they believe. I'm pretty sure they do not.
Asia today therefore carries the seeds of a truly catastrophic episode of mutual misperception. Both Washington and China are steadily upping the stakes in their rivalry as China's provocations of US friends and allies become more flagrant and America's commitments to support them become more categorical.
Both believe they can do this with impunity because both believe the other will back down to avoid a clash. There is a disconcertingly high chance that they are both wrong.
Someone needs to change the nature of the game to avert the risk of disaster.
MORE:
China Sea DisputesChina American RelationsChina NewsEast China SeaEast China Sea DisputeSouth China SeaForeign PolicyChinese American RelationsChina Foreign PolicyChina u.s. RelationsChina America RelationsChinaSouth China Sea Dispute
Why China and America are Headed Toward a Catastrophic Clash | Hugh White

@Aeronaut @Luftwaffe @Kaan @mafiya @Chak Bamu @Rashid Mahmood
 
.
Back
Top Bottom