China's strategy in Korean peninsula

Blackstone said:

I'm talking about both US economic and security interests in Asia.

Click to expand...

What are US security interests in Asia? It's basically about China.

Eg. If Trump recalled US troops from South Korea, South Korea would swiftly come to a rapprochement with China and remove a key Chinese roadblock to a neutral reunified Korea.

The US is in Japan, because Japan knows it cannot compete with a much larger China either economically or militarily.

Taiwan is part of an unresolved Chinese civil war.

The South China Sea is where you've got 6 countries all arguing over the same piece of water and the islands there.

What does the US actually gain with its military alliances in Asia?

Answer: It keeps China occupied inside Asia.

AndrewS said:

What are US security interests in Asia? It's basically about China.

Eg. If Trump recalled US troops from South Korea, South Korea would swiftly come to a rapprochement with China and remove a key Chinese roadblock to a neutral reunified Korea.

The US is in Japan, because Japan knows it cannot compete with a much larger China either economically or militarily.

Taiwan is part of an unresolved Chinese civil war.

The South China Sea is where you've got 6 countries all arguing over the same piece of water and the islands there.

What does the US actually gain with its military alliances in Asia?

Answer: It keeps China occupied inside Asia.

Click to expand...

US security interests in Asia are three fold, support treaty allies, enforce Breton Woods world order in Asia, and prevent rise of rival hegenoms in the region. I agree it's now mainly about China, but that's only because the Soviet Union imploded, and China is doing too good a job reemerging.

Agreed on US in Japan; America gets a valuable ally to contain China, and Japan knows it's screwed without the United States. But, going forward, I could see scenarios where Washington throws Tokyo overboard and embrace Beijing. That's why Japan sweats buckets of sweat whenever US and China improve their relations.

Agreed on Taiwan.

Agreed on SCS sovereignty disputes.

Agreed on your final point US would dearly love to contain China. But, I think that train left the station 10 or 15 years ago. G-2 is still possible, but Washington is running out of time to negotiate for a workable deal where US maintains strong presence and China gets to co-lead Asia.

Richard Santos said:

China's populous, although not necessarily its government, has an unfortunate habit of looking down upon the power of the country's small neighbors until its small neighbors knocks it on its head.

Click to expand...

Oh you mean Americans don't do that? Outcry over US soldiers raping civilians in South Korea and other countries never gets sympathy from Americans. The usual response from Americans is the US is protecting their country. So that either means US soldiers have the right to rape the people they're "protecting" or they're telling Koreans to shut up about it because they want to protect Americans having a clean wholesome image. Same unsympathetic response when it comes up to No Gun Ri where US soldiers fired upon and slaughtered a bunch of South Korean civilians because they couldn't tell if there were North Koreans hiding among them. Wouldn't being respectful towards smaller countries mean admitting there's a problem that has to dealt with instead of looking at South Koreans lives as not worth that much so it's all right to treat them less than they would look at American lives? Yeah just look at the US Navy commander's initial response to the 12 year old Japanese girl being raped. He automatically wrote her off as being a prostitute so she deserved it. And no civilian Western women's rights organizations said a word. So down the chain it's not worthy of their attention.

Blackstone said:

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.

Click to expand...

The two scenarios you presented are just two different points on the same spectrum, the spectrum of US power in East Asia. The relative decline of the US is more about China's rise than America's fall, war is one way to check China's rise. The sooner they do it the closer they can get to maintaining primacy, by 2020 they can only hope for co-dominion, and I expect that by 2030 they'll be on a path toward relinquishing hegemonic intent altogether in East Asia.

AndrewS said:

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.

Click to expand...

Give it some time. The US fought plenty of wars against Mexico and Canada in the beginning. It'll take generations of being hopelessly overshadowed by a greater power for the populace to give up resisting altogether. Vietnamese resistance is already much milder now compared to the 70's and 80's, and it's only since the 90's after the fall of the USSR and the rise of China that Vietnam's resistance has become hopeless.

Blackstone said:

Agreed on your final point US would dearly love to contain China. But, I think that train left the station 10 or 15 years ago. G-2 is still possible, but Washington is running out of time to negotiate for a workable deal where US maintains strong presence and China gets to co-lead Asia.

Click to expand...

Well, in my opinion, it's never realistic to contain a country the size of China. You may delay its eventual rise but can never completely contain it. It's simply physically impossible.

How many China-sized nations do we actually have in the world? A country managed to grow to that size for a reason. A large country typically has a large population, which translates to a large market and potential for significant development and less dependence on foreign influence.

It also means the land has enough resources to sustain a large population. Otherwise, major conflicts would rise from within enough times to cause the entire country to collapse and split into smaller nations. This is actually what happened to the Soviets. Sort of like collapsing under its own weight.

It also means geographically the country must have enough defensive advantages to protect itself. Otherwise, with its rich resources, it would have been invaded so often that it eventually becomes impossible to maintain sovereignty. Then split into smaller pieces.

These factors alone make it almost impossible for any opponent to hinder these gigantic nations' development long term. They might lose their ways temporarily for a few decades but will bounce back because of large population and rich resources. Of course, it will take a long time for them to grow if they have to do it on their own but it'll be like turbocharged when they get some help from elsewhere.

The fact that China has been developing so fast is actually a testament of China's tremendous geopolitical advantages. It's like Michael Jordan getting his favorite sneakers. MJ can still dunk with easy even without shoes. But with his favorite sneakers, he will fly. Guys like you and me? We can't even touch the board even with MJ's personal Nike Jordan.

Its extensive defensive advantages also makes actual attempts to contain it become so difficult and financially and physically prohibitive.

A country with the size of China or the US is like a freight train going downhill at 100 mph. You may be able to slow it down a little bit but impossible to stop it. Plain physics.

solarz said:

Trump is not the only American president calling on China to "do more" on NK. Obama was saying the same thing.

The fact is, China would be happy to not get involved in the Korean peninsula, so long as the stability and security of its borders are maintained. It is the West that keeps demanding that China "rein in" NK, i.e. political intervention.

Click to expand...

Yes he was, but Obama didn't respect President Xi or as I like to call him Emperor Xi, President Trump on the other hand invited him to visit, treated him as an honored head of State, and honestly expressed his concerns, and no doubt listened respectfully as President Xi shared his concerns. Believe it or not China and the US have common concerns, President Xi and President Trump were no doubt candid with one another, and President Xi is likely just as concerned about NK as is President Trump...

You saw how Obama's last China visit went no doubt, Michelle and Her mother were very disrespectful to the Chinese People who were serving them early in Obama's Presidency, rather than being kind and gracious, she was pushy and demanding,,,, everybody remembers how you make them feel, may not remember what you say??

So I'd say that Trump and Xi have a good start on a sound relationship, we better all pray they can get past the last eight years and warm things up. I like President Xi, further more, I would never underestimate him, and neither does President Trump. So you at least ought to cut President Trump a little slack, don't sell him short, he does care.

SamuraiBlue said:

My two cents to the situation is basically the situation had not changed much from the first Sino-Japan war which was a conflict to gain influence to the peninsula.
As for solution both China and US agrees to unify the peninsula under a single government and both remove their involvement and have the unified government become a permanently neutralized state.
Of course the road for this to materialize is long and difficult but the region will become much more stable if it does.

Click to expand...

China has always been much less interventionist towards other countries than any of the colonial powers including the US, which builds goodwill towards China among other countries especially in contrast to colonial powers' behavior.

The natural order in East Asia when China is strong is that China will have the most influence over other Asian countries.

Therefore the need for official neutrality for a united Korea or even two Koreas is something third/fourth party countries will have to impose for their own benefit at their own expense.

Strongman Trump is ready to meet Fat Kim when the time is right. Will that make a new calculus in the peninsula?

Blackstone said:

US security interests in Asia are three fold, support treaty allies, enforce Breton Woods world order in Asia, and prevent rise of rival hegenoms in the region. I agree it's now mainly about China, but that's only because the Soviet Union imploded, and China is doing too good a job reemerging.

Agreed on US in Japan; America gets a valuable ally to contain China, and Japan knows it's screwed without the United States. But, going forward, I could see scenarios where Washington throws Tokyo overboard and embrace Beijing. That's why Japan sweats buckets of sweat whenever US and China improve their relations.

Agreed on Taiwan.

Agreed on SCS sovereignty disputes.

Agreed on your final point US would dearly love to contain China. But, I think that train left the station 10 or 15 years ago. G-2 is still possible, but Washington is running out of time to negotiate for a workable deal where US maintains strong presence and China gets to co-lead Asia.

Click to expand...

In reality Japan isn't so much "screwed" without the US but that in any natural order Japan has to submit to dominance by either the US or China, even Russia, and so far their deal is better under US dominance.

Also the US speaks, and history gave it the chance to make a speech with, the language of war and violence with Japan which holds a special place in Japan's cultural heart especially among a faction of its elite.

This is likely to change once China becomes both more enticing and intimidating as a more powerful all-aspect power. This will be especially true if China comes out on top of any armed conflict with either Japan or the US, but this also applies vice versa.

why can't China and Korea live together like USA and Canada like brothers ? Instead of provoking each other they should focus creating good relationship with each others. The recent moves by China to indirectly punish S.Korea for installing THAD will surely backfire. The more china tries to subjugate S.Korea , then more it will try to seek USA's alliance. Even Vietnam who fought a bloody war with USA is acting as a passive USA allies. China should learn how to have good relation with its neighbors if it truly wants to see peace in Asia and reduce US influence.