Guam is now de facto US territory, that's as far east as China can push it. The larger strategy to accomplish that is rather simple, gain leverage then negotiate from a position of strength. Building comprehensive national power is the bedrock to gaining leverage, and I think China is just beginning to have enough of it to start chipping away at the periphery, starting with the Philippines, Thailand, and Korea.
China's strategy in Korean peninsula
- Thread starter Phead128
- Start date
Guam is now de facto US territory, that's as far east as China can push it. The larger strategy to accomplish that is rather simple, gain leverage then negotiate from a position of strength. Building comprehensive national power is the bedrock to gaining leverage, and I think China is just beginning to have enough of it to start chipping away at the periphery, starting with the Philippines, Thailand, and Korea.
Blackstone
Brigadier
China Guam west, and US Guam east is not in American interests. Full stop. Therefore, I see the question as how best for US to secure its interests in the growth engine part of the world. My argument is to use current US advantages to secure an arrangement that ensures strong American presence in Asia while sharing leadership with China. It's an immensely difficult task, to say the least, and I don't know if it could be done. The one thing that gives me hope is all sides understand how dire the situation could become, and how much worse than WW2 an all out Sino-American conflict in Asia could get.
Like I said, comprehensive national strength is the bedrock of leverage. The US will have trouble executing any type of strategy if its strength continues to decline vis-a-vis China's. Unfortunately the Americans' best bet is in fact war. They would need to goad China into a war it cannot win, and the best locale is in the SCS. It's a location where the USN can still win fairly comfortably, especially with Japan tying up some of Chinese forces (they don't have to actually join the war, just posture), where any war there can hurt China much more than the US, and where China has enough interest and prestige invested that it could conceivably be goaded into a hot war but not enough for it to escalate to nuclear. Ideally it should've been done ~2010 - 2015, but that window is rapidly closing for the betterment of all of mankind.
Blackstone
Brigadier
No problems with your first two sentences, because they apply to a wide swath of geopolitical conditions, but the next sentence, the one in bold, needs more clarity before I could comment. What scenario do you say war is US best option? Maintaining primacy in Asia or negotiating with China for co-dominion? For reference, my post you replied to was about the latter.
Just 2 comments.
As Kissinger likes to quote, peace only comes from having a balance of power or a hegemonic power.
We're now in that uncertain power transition from US hegemony in the Western Pacific, to a Balance of Power situation for at least the next decade.
As for the relationship between a unified Korean and China, I would say the Vietnam example is too pessimistic. I think it would be more like US-Mexico or possibly even US-Canada.
Blackstone
Brigadier
I'm of the mind China would insist on something more like the Soviet Union-Finland scenario for unified Korea, rather than either US-Canada or US-Mexico. Reason is while Canada and Mexico depend on the US for economic wellbeing and security, but both have their own foreign policy and at times they'll go against US interests. Unified Korea, on the other hand, would not come into being without Beijing's blessing along with a list of demands. Somewhere on the top of the list are US forces off the Korean peninsula and Seoul having no foreign policy that's repugnant to Beijing.
You're talking about securing US economic interests here.
It was supposed to be TPP which would then lead to FTAAP. And the FTAAP structure would automatically mean China-US sharing leadership.
China still wants an FTAAP, but given the US rejection of TPP, I don't think it is going to happen.
---
At the moment, we've got too many US admirals and generals thinking they can win a war against China. But within the next 5 years, I expect China will have more than enough nuclear warheads to change that view.
Blackstone
Brigadier
I'm talking about both US economic and security interests in Asia.
Remember that both Canada and Mexico have demilitarised and don't even pretend that their military could stop the USA. That contrasts with Finland and Vietnam who both maintained a robust military.
Plus when was the last time Canada or Mexico really defied the USA on something important?
Blackstone
Brigadier
Like the US with Canada and Mexico, China isn't interested in attacking or occupying Korean territory. But, China will probably insist Korea wouldn't go against its important national interests, and kicking US off the Peninsula is one of them. As for the US, it might be contrarian, but I suspect a deal could be worked out between Washington and Beijing on uniting Korea, even if it means US withdraws its forces to Japan. Tough negotiating to be sure, but I think that's possible maybe even probable.
Canada and Mexico both defied Washington and joined the AIIB. Going forward, both would likely join other China-sponsored economic initiatives that suit their interests, even against US wishes. BRI comes to mind.