Chinese Geopolitics

Well China since Nixon has always accepted a strong US military presence to stabilize Asia. It's only until recently where China sees the US changing policies as actively containing China. I just read an article that said Obama has no one in his administration that is an expert on China. There was also a discussion on TV I saw where it was said Obama wanted to avoid the Middle East because of various reasons from it wasn't going to be solved anytime soon to it was a negative to voters to get involved. I've mentioned this before and it sounds all the more true that ironically Obama started the pivot to Asia because he thought China was the most manageable out of all the world where he thought he could make his mark in history.

A lot of talk lately about Obama's foreign policy in general. I was watching this morning on one of the cable news networks talking about how nothing in Obama's foreign policy can be close to be calling successful. What I notice is no one mentions China. You'd figure the pivot towards Asia would be spun as a win. You listen to the media everyone in Asia except China loves Obama's pivot. It's ganging up everyone against China so why not consider it successful? Because maybe Obama's ultimate goal with the pivot was just to get China to submit on its knees to the US. I'm talking about China's positions on the world, trade, and reshaping Chinese society so it's more ideal to Western culture.

Like I mentioned before in this forum when I read about advisors to the Presidents on China, they all tell the Presidents that China will yield through pressure and isolation. China doesn't want to be left out. I think Obama was the first President to actually believe it. TPP was designed to isolate China. The pivot was designed to pressure China. Has China surrendered? China is turning the tables and putting the same scrutiny on Western companies as they do to Chinese companies regarding risks to national security. China is arresting Westerners for crimes committed in China like never before. Obama's managed to get both China and Russia focused on the US and not on each other. If the pivot was due to Chinese aggression, why are allies upset that the US hasn't confronted China? The US has shown reluctance in confronting China because the aim of the pivot wasn't about curbing Chinese aggression. It was about turning China into a reliable obedient subordinate through pressure and isolation to which Obama wanted that in his legacy. That's why even though China's neighbors love the pivot, it's not anywhere being considered a success. It's only added to Obama's pain when it comes to the world.

Look at how careless Obama was in regard to Syrian rebels. He encouraged them to fight and Obama ended up backing out on his word. Did Obama do the same thing in Asia? If the US doesn't deal with China or if there's a conflict and China wins, guess which countries are going to be left out in the cold for being encouraged to stand up against China. Not the US. It's the countries angry at the US right now for not confronting China. All for Obama's legacy... If Obama was naïve enough to believe, despite the history of closing itself off to the world, that China was going to yield to isolation because it didn't want to be left out, then maybe he even believes more heartedly in the American exceptionalism romanticism he's been espousing. It does explain why he showed no concerned to hi-tech companies worries over their sales being affected over the NSA scandal. As Congressman Mike Rogers believed China had no other choice but to buy. And now they're alarmed over China's actions in the hi-tech sectors acting like the NSA scandal has nothing to do with it.

solarz said:

The problem is, the US is pursuing relations with China through two different channels:

1- the direct channel, through bilateral China-US relations

2- the "proxy" channel, through China-Japan, China-Philippine, China-Vietnam, etc. relations.

This makes it very difficult for China to have an honest dialog with the US. In the direct channel, the US claims that it does not take a stance in China's border disputes. However, its actions in the proxy channel speaks otherwise. It is very much like someone who tells you face-to-face that they want to be friends, but then bad-mouths you behind your back to your other acquaintances.

Click to expand...

As you noted, the US uses multilateral systems of engagement, while China prefers bilateral. Even if we assign no negatives to either schemes, they're different enough to cause friction. The third wheel in that affair is rest of the Indo-Pacific community, majority of which want US involvement in multilateral ways. So from a bilateral perspective, China is at odds not only with the United States, but also with majority of Asian countries that want the US around to balance China.

Blackstone said:

O'rly? I get just the opposite from junior mao. In my view, he's having a bit of fun trolling and flaming the forum.

Click to expand...

In my view, Blackstone. If one wanted to talk about trolling and flaming, I am sure posters here still remember your performance in the "A Chinese breath of free air" thread, J-20's engine discussion in J-20 thread. Just can't help from getting on your high horse huh.

Blackstone said:

As you noted, the US uses multilateral systems of engagement, while China prefers bilateral. Even if we assign no negatives to either schemes, they're different enough to cause friction. The third wheel in that affair is rest of the Indo-Pacific community, majority of which want US involvement in multilateral ways. So from a bilateral perspective, China is at odds not only with the United States, but also with majority of Asian countries that want the US around to balance China.

Click to expand...

The other nations don't want US to be involved in a multilateral way, they just want US as a leverage in their negotiations with China. The distinction is that under your definition, the US would be negotiating on their behalf (or at the very least alongside them), but we can definitely see that this isn't what those nations are asking for.

What we are actually seeing is the US trying to pander to its proxy nations in order to gain supposed leverage against China, which, in the end, amounts to bad-mouthing China: we have yet to see any concrete benefit gained by the US (as a nation, not just some particular interest groups). The US is actually sacrificing its own interests and jeopardizing regional stability by engaging in this kind of diplomacy.

We can see this clearly in the ECS. The US gains nothing from Japanese control of the Diaoyu Islands, aside from the dubious function of preventing the PLAN from accessing the Pacific. It tells China that it is neutral in the dispute, yet continues to assure the Japanese that they have American backing if conflict breaks out over the issue. The result is a more belligerent Japan and a more hostile China, neither of which serves US interests.

Should China retaliate Japan's support of Vietnam and Philippines by providing 6 to 12 Coast Guard cutters to Russia for their Kuril islands dispute? Another avenue of approach is allowing the Russian Coast Guard the use of Dalian port for their patrols. It would likely make Sino-Japanese relations worse, but it might also make Japan think twice about meddling in China's foreign affairs.

If Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s territorial dispute strategy was to thwart China in the south as he spoke to Russia in the north, it’ll need some re-thinking. As The Diplomat reported yesterday, Russia began conducting a military drill on the disputed Kuril Islands. The drill is hugely provocative and has deeply upset the Japanese government, which says that it will “strongly protest” Russia’s audacity in the Kurils. The drill is not a small operation either–it involved 1,000 troops, a handful of attack helicopters, and other military hardware. This incident formally puts a stop to whatever progress Tokyo and Moscow had attained towards a peaceful resolution of the long-standing dispute between the two countries.

Recently, Tokyo sanctioned Moscow over its actions in Ukraine following the controversial downing of Malaysian Airlines flight MH17, likely by Russian-armed Ukrainian separatists. At that time, I speculated that Japan would side with Europe and the United States on Russia, even if Abe had incentives to move ahead with talks on the final status of the Kuril Islands. With this week’s military drill, Russia signaled to Japan that progress on the dispute will be impossible unless Japan considers taking an independent path from the West on its relations with Russia. Tokyo, in the meantime, is highly unlikely to do this.

Geopolitically, this development in Russo-Japanese relations is a reminder of how far-flung crises can spread their contagion to remote disputes. Additionally, it emphasizes the extent to which Japan’s hands are tied in its ability to conduct foreign policy independently from its alliance with the United States and overall alignment with the West. Even if Tokyo would gain in the long-term by easing its reaction to Russia’s actions in Ukraine, doing so would have short-term costs for Tokyo’s relations with the West and possibly alienate it within Asia.

For the moment, it appears as if the Kuril Islands dispute–which once appeared as one of the more promising high-profile Asian territorial disputes that was heading towards resolution–will be gridlocked, caught up in the geopolitical shockwaves of the Ukrainian crisis. Until that crisis is resolved, Japan and Russia will likely make scant progress on the Kuril Islands issue. Even if the Ukrainian crisis heads towards a resolution, what will be necessary on top of that is for Russia to normalize its relations with the West, which will include the lifting of sanctions. As long as Vladimir Putin remains in charge in Moscow, it is highly unlikely that Japan–no matter how badly it wants to–will be able to move forward with the dispute.

Click to expand...

texx1 said:

In my view, Blackstone. If one wanted to talk about trolling and flaming, I am sure posters here still remember your performance in the "A Chinese breath of free air" thread, J-20's engine discussion in J-20 thread. Just can't help from getting on your high horse huh.

Click to expand...

Fair enough Texx, and we both live in glass houses, as does everyone else on Planet Earth. You and I don't always agree, but we usually debate without flaming, and I suppose that's the point. My opinion about junior remains unchanged, even if from horseback. For whatever it's worth, my criticism of Communist oppression of religion is mainstream and not trolling, as is my skepticism of Chinese jet engine developments. You can't honestly believe all is well with China's jet engine development, can you?

solarz said:

The other nations don't want US to be involved in a multilateral way, they just want US as a leverage in their negotiations with China.

Click to expand...

Which by definition is multilateral.

solarz said:

The distinction is that under your definition, the US would be negotiating on their behalf (or at the very least alongside them), but we can definitely see that this isn't what those nations are asking for.

What we are actually seeing is the US trying to pander to its proxy nations in order to gain supposed leverage against China

Click to expand...

Sorry, when you start throwing words like "proxy" around you reveal a significant bias in the disussion, which is almost impossible to lead to open dialog.

Fact is, these nations have relations with the US developed over decades. From military alliances to strong trade agreements, etc. Calling them "proxies" in an effort to minimize them will not change things towards the PRCs benefit. To the contrary, such an attitude s likely to drive them further towards the US.

China is going to have to engage in such a manner, over years and years probably, to build trust and show the benefits for them to decide to engage with her.

It is wholly unrealistic to think that these other nations will otherwise walk away from their longstanding relations.

Blackstone said:

Fair enough Texx, and we both live in glass houses, as does everyone else on Planet Earth. You and I don't always agree, but we usually debate without flaming, and I suppose that's the point. My opinion about junior remains unchanged, even if from horseback. For whatever it's worth, my criticism of Communist oppression of religion is mainstream and not trolling, as is my skepticism of Chinese jet engine developments. You can't honestly believe all is well with China's jet engine development, can you?

Click to expand...

Religious discussion of any kind whether implied or not has no place on Sinodefence forum. Criticism related to religion should definitely not be allowed here. When faith is involved, calm logic goes right out of window. As for Chinese domestic engine development, no one really knows due to government secrecy so let's just wait for more info. I know your view tend to be pessimistic regarding China. I am optimistic as I have been surprised by the speed of Chinese military advancement many times in the last ten year.

solarz said:

The other nations don't want US to be involved in a multilateral way, they just want US as a leverage in their negotiations with China. The distinction is that under your definition, the US would be negotiating on their behalf (or at the very least alongside them), but we can definitely see that this isn't what those nations are asking for.

Click to expand...

Solarz, I hope you're not trying to tell me the US is leading the Asia-China negotiations, with Obama in the White House. I mean Me. Lead-from-behind himself? Nope, the Obama-lead State Department is only in the middle of it because US friends and allies forced him into the role. If left alone, Obama rather play golf than tackle serious issues.

What we are actually seeing is the US trying to pander to its proxy nations in order to gain supposed leverage against China, which, in the end, amounts to bad-mouthing China: we have yet to see any concrete benefit gained by the US (as a nation, not just some particular interest groups). The US is actually sacrificing its own interests and jeopardizing regional stability by engaging in this kind of diplomacy.

Click to expand...

I agree the US is being taken for a ride by Japan, Philippines and Vietnam, aided and abetted by China-threat hawks and the lame stream media. On the other hand, China is also throwing its consider bulk around the region, making life rough for some of its neighbors. The bottom line is China should work with the US and be partners instead of adversaries; we don't have to be friends, but we shouldn't be enemies. Nobody wins with that scenario.

We can see this clearly in the ECS. The US gains nothing from Japanese control of the Diaoyu Islands, aside from the dubious function of preventing the PLAN from accessing the Pacific. It tells China that it is neutral in the dispute, yet continues to assure the Japanese that they have American backing if conflict breaks out over the issue. The result is a more belligerent Japan and a more hostile China, neither of which serves US interests.

Click to expand...

It isn't that easy or clear. Japan is the linchpin of US security network in Asia, and without it, the whole thing unravels at the seams. That's why America is forced to do whatever she must, short of war, to mollify Japan and keep the lid on an explosive situation. Also, Japan will be belligerent with or without the US, because winning the Third Sino-Japanese war of 1894 never produced desired outcomes nor lasting peace. Frankly, Japan fears a resurgent China will someday seek justice. And it's right to fear that.

texx1 said:

Religious discussion of any kind whether implied or not has no place on Sinodefence forum. Criticism related to religion should definitely not be allowed here. When faith is involved, calm logic goes right out of window. As for Chinese domestic engine development, no one really knows due to government secrecy so let's just wait for more info. I know your view tend to be pessimistic regarding China. I am optimistic as I have been surprised by the speed of Chinese military advancement many times in the last ten year.

Click to expand...

You don't know what you're talking about.