China's SCS Strategy Thread

[Lezt]

Been reading those "tea leaves" haven't you, well, I'm thinking its time for another TEA PARTY. Mr. Obama's lack of trust is not about racism, but his "socialist agenda" I believe it was Mr. Obama who called conservatives bitter clingers, clinging to their guns, religion, and antipathy, I would say that is racist in and of itself...

Actual politics aside,

I think what underlying principle Shen was illustrating merits an acknowledgement.

In a "democracy" the people are responsible for the actions of the government; as the government is elected/formed by them.

 

[shen]

Actual politics aside,

I think what underlying principle Shen was illustrating merits an acknowledgement.

In a "democracy" the people are responsible for the actions of the government; as the government is elected/formed by them.

actually I don't think I had a point. I was just been a smartass sorry Blackstone.
I don't think Americans should be held responsible for the actions of their government.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

so the vast majority of American lawmakers are basically elected for life. in "totalitarian dictatorship" such as China, politicians at least have worry about purges and anti-corruption officers coming for you.

 

[delft]

Actual politics aside,

I think what underlying principle Shen was illustrating merits an acknowledgement.

In a "democracy" the people are responsible for the actions of the government; as the government is elected/formed by them.

But how much influence do elections have on the "deep state"? Its a concept that a dozen years ago appeared in the news to describe politics in Turkey when Erdogan started to fight the local deep state - he just about succeeded by now I think - but is now being used for many more states. I read this week that Russia doesn't have a deep state as yet. The BBC made radio and TV series about the British deep state called Yes, Minister. How deep is it in US?

 

[Blackstone]

Stephen Harner, Former US State Department Official, has an opinion piece in

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

that gives a different narrative on Sino-American relations. The portion I agree with is the danger of continued US insistence on primacy in Asia through the gun. Stephen Harner is also right about established interests in Washington that are hostile to anyone challenging US primacy. But I think he's too harsh on US presence in Asia; it's true America isn't an Asian nation, but she is every inch a Pacific one, and has vital national interests in Asia. Nevertheless, Harner presents a different perspective and shows not everyone in Washington DC is drunk.

The bottom line is China-threat hawks in the US must get their minds around the fact there's no security solution in Asia without China, and America-threat hawks in China must get their minds around the fact there's no security solution in Asia without the United States.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, delivering the ninth annual Barnett-Oksenberg lecture in Shanghai on September 9, spoke of his historic decision to establish diplomatic relations with China some 35 years ago.

In a voice undiminished in his 90th year, Carter recalled having conducted negotiations in 1978 directly with Deng Xiaoping in strict secrecy, limiting communications on the U.S. side to his national security advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, China scholar Michael Oksenberg, and the first U.S. ambassador to China, then head of the United States Liaison Office (USLO) in Beijing and former President of the United Auto Workers, Leonard Woodcock.

For your reference, in 1978, I was a Foreign Service Officer in the USLO’s economic section and working with Ambassador Woodcock, as well as Deputy Chief of Mission, and later ambassador to China, J. Stapleton Roy. But of course I was as surprised as almost everyone else at the simultaneous announcement in Beijing and Washington on December 15 that diplomatic relations would be formally established on January 1, 1979.

In his talk Carter explained how he deliberately kept the negotiations secret from the State Department, within which he knew were persons opposed to normalization. Such people, representing powerful vested interests in the status quo, would, he knew, try to derail his plan to correct history.

Ever since he, as a U.S. navy submarine crew member, had called on the port of Qingdao in 1949, Carter felt that the United States had missed a historically precious opportunity to recognize the new Chinese government, and that the people of both countries had paid a heavy price for this mistake.

Carter applauded Nixon’s opening to China and the signing of the Shanghai Communiqué in 1972. Upon assuming office in 1977, he instructed Brzezinski to initiate contact with China’s leaders with the aim of completing normalization.

This month in Shanghai, Carter reemphasized the imperative strategic and humanistic logic of positive, proactive U.S.-China cooperation in pursuit of peace.

Tragically and alarmingly, however, representatives of vested interests in a pernicious status quo hostile to positive change in the U.S.-China relationship, of the kind identified and successfully elided by Carter in 1978, still exist, even in such presumed to be impartial and authoritative places as The Washington Post.

This was proven by an opinion piece in the September 14 edition titled “China’s ‘creeping invasion’” and written by deputy editorial page editor Jackson Diehl.

Diehl’s article was datelined Tokyo. He had been talking too, and in his piece speaks for, the Japanese government officials who would defend the Abe government’s outrageous refusal even to acknowledge that the sovereignty of the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands is in dispute, thereby characterizing China’s fully justified patrols in the area as “incursions” and “probing.”

But the main theme of Diehl’s one-sided, tendentious piece is “that Asia remains peaceful, if far from tranquil...reflects the difference between Xi’s China and other would-be disrupters of the global status quo, such as [Russian President] Putin.” Diehl continues:

Unable to modernize Russia’s economy or satisfy its middle class, Putin has made a risky bet that nationalist adventurism will sustain his regime. Xi, in contrast, appears to be settling into comfortable control over a country whose economic and military strength is still rapidly expanding. Beijing’s assault on the post-Cold War order can be more patient and subtle.

....Without exception, Japanese officials and analysts I spoke to here over a week believe China has not moderated its ambition to replace the United States as the dominant power in Asia. But it aims to avoid the sort of crisis--and Western pushback--Russia has provoked by moving in small increments, interspersed with tactical retreats when necessary. The result, over time, could be as momentous as a war. “Some people call it the creeping invasion,” said Akio Takahara, a China expert at Tokyo University.

Readers of China-US Focus are justified in feeling deep frustration when reading commentary like this, as it reveals a dominant intellectual and policy orientation in Washington that is no less hostile and potentially obstructive to positive change in U.S.-China relations than that of three or four decades ago.

Today, we are slightly incredulous that President Carter, and Nixon before him, had to overcome an effective American denial of the very existence of a sovereign China. Today’s malevolent, self-interested blindness is toward who is, or should be, “dominant” in Asia.

It is facile, but no less necessary, to note one simple fact: Look at a map of Asia. One does not see the United States. The United States is not an Asian country. By what right or logic, then, can the United States presume that it should dominate this region?

Asia is home to several of the world’s oldest and most highly advanced civilizations, the largest nation-states, and the largest economies. Foremost, indeed, “dominant” among them by every objective measure, except one, is China.

The one exception is military power. In this aspect, the United States – a non-Asian country – has, since World War II, maintained unchallengeable superiority and regional hegemony, countenancing no resistance, opposition, or parity.

And it is precisely this unnatural, unjustified U.S. military power present in forward bases and alliances with Japan, Korea, Australia, and the Philippines that is the main cause of regional instability – preventing the evolution of a natural, organic order of comity among and conflict resolution by and between Asian states.

This is the “post-Cold War order,” the status quo, which Diehl’s Washington Post and his interlocutors in Japan claim warrant protection from the “would-be disrupters” of China.

Again, it is useful to think back to the period of U.S.-China normalization. Who were the “disputers of the global status quo” then? They were Jimmy Carter and Deng Xiaoping. These far-sighted statesmen disrupted a status quo that was dangerous and detrimental to peace and to the fortunes of their people.

Today’s status quo is not so different. China’s leaders see this and are proactively promoting change. History is waiting for U.S. leaders to join them.

 

[broadsword]

Stephen Harner has no influence on Obama's policies, as do former presidents. And Stephen was just a former US State Department official. Some people believe there is a cabal in the government who are pulling the strings since successive administration after administration formulate largely similar foreign policies. I tend to believe it is not just the elite groups, but the American people who are tugging the direction of the policies. The American President believes he is acting in the best interest of the whole of America.

I don't think China wants to challenge America in the SCS on its own initiative. Not when its military is qualitatively and quantatively inferior unless provoked. Only when its technology is at the stage that the Soviet Union was in the 70's relative to the US will it put its foot down and that will take a few more decades. By then, in all likelihood, the US itself would not even want a direct confrontation.

I read tea leaves too.

 

[delft]

Stephen Harner, Former US State Department Official, has an opinion piece in

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

that gives a different narrative on Sino-American relations. The portion I agree with is the danger of continued US insistence on primacy in Asia through the gun. Stephen Harner is also right about established interests in Washington that are hostile to anyone challenging US primacy. But I think he's too harsh on US presence in Asia; it's true America isn't an Asian nation, but she is every inch a Pacific one, and has vital national interests in Asia. Nevertheless, Harner presents a different perspective and shows not everyone in Washington DC is drunk.

The bottom line is China-threat hawks in the US must get their minds around the fact there's no security solution in Asia without China, and America-threat hawks in China must get their minds around the fact there's no security solution in Asia without the United States.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

What are these vital national interests? I will accept maintaining peace between countries, I will not accept maintaining a military presence in Asia as such or interfering in the internal affairs of Asian countries.

 

[Blackstone]

What are these vital national interests? I will accept maintaining peace between countries, I will not accept maintaining a military presence in Asia as such or interfering in the internal affairs of Asian countries.

This is not a serious question, and doesn't deserve a serious reply.

 

[Equation]

What are these vital national interests? I will accept maintaining peace between countries, I will not accept maintaining a military presence in Asia as such or interfering in the internal affairs of Asian countries.

That's the status quo that the US has always had a fear of losing when China is growing is size and power and not dancing to their tune.

 

[Blackstone]

That's the status quo that the US has always had a fear of losing when China is growing is size and power and not dancing to their tune.

For someone who claims to live in the US, you sure are clueless about US "losing" China since that phrase hasn't been in vogue for about six decades.

 

[jobjed]

For someone who claims to live in the US, you sure are clueless about US "losing" China since that phrase hasn't been in vogue for about six decades.

How did you manage to miss an entire four-letter word?

...losing when China...