After Bin Laden, will China become US foe?: GlobalTimes

[ejazr]

http://opinion.globaltimes.cn/editorial/2011-05/651677.html

The demise of Osama bin Laden offers the US an opportunity to declare an end to the War on Terror. In the view of many Americans, a strategic adjustment of US foreign policy appears inevitable. Besides, the US media is riddled with analyses of how to handle a rising China. Do the prescriptions and analyses imply that US policy would aim to undo the development China has achieved in recent decades?

For a long time, the Chinese people have been haunted by the anxiety that, one day, the US will confront China. This has turned out to be unfounded – so far. In the perception of experts at home and abroad, the counter-terrorism war, mainly in the Arab world, has served to prevent the US from "disturbing" China during the past decade. As trouble continues to spread in the Middle East, the US may remain pinned down in the region for another 10 years.

These viewpoints, to some extent, are reasonable but exaggerate the situation. For the US, the concerns aroused by those authoritarian states in the Arab world are not comparable to developments rooted in the rise of China. Given that China's GDP may exceed that of the US within 10 years, this may become the primary factor to threaten the latter's global hegemony.

In a US versus China scenario, will confrontation be the only option? More people in both countries answer in the negative. For the US, it would seem rational to maintain the status quo rather than provoke China, thereby triggering risks that would hurt the US.

In the near future, the US may pour more money and resources in handling the rise of China. As a counterweight, China has enough power to prevent the revival of the kind of confrontation the US had with the former Soviet Union. China's peaceful rise might be unsettling to the US, but that has not spurred recasting of its foreign policy toward the world's most populous country. Besides, it is not a coincidence that China's pace of development has dwarfed the efforts of the US to contain China.

A down-to-earth approach would be to expand further the vibrant Sino-US economic cooperation, which is a powerful enough process to squeeze out any right-wing paranoia in the US. Periodic skirmishes between the US and China may be unavoidable, but downright deterioration in bilateral relations could be destructive to both.

No external force can stop China's rise. What China needs is confidence in maintaining its rapid development. A confident China can prevent any molehill of a dispute with the US growing into a mountain of conflict.

Doubtless, the US is an omnipresent superpower. The rise of China is certain to cause friction with the US, and this demands the prevalence of a peaceful and calm mindset on both sides. Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger once noted that if the US treats China as a foe, China would be a foe. Put differently, from the Chinese perspective: If China treats the US as a foe, the US would be a foe.

 

[Yusuf]

What the editor has tried to convey is not apparent. Talks of chinas rise, it's unstoppable rise, it's power and then how to coexist with the US.

On a separate note, the WoT has proved to be a blessing for the Chinese as it was lower to grow rapidly while the US was bogged down and lost focus of the treat china presented.

 

[Abir]

What the editor has tried to convey is not apparent. Talks of chinas rise, it's unstoppable rise, it's power and then how to coexist with the US.

On a separate note, the WoT has proved to be a blessing for the Chinese as it was lower to grow rapidly while the US was bogged down and lost focus of the treat china presented.

But then the wars let US to control the resources in middle-east and central asia as well. China wont be able to act as hegemon until she controls the resources she needs to grow.

 

[Yusuf]

But then the wars let US to control the resources in middle-east and central asia as well. China wont be able to act as hegemon until she controls the resources she needs to grow.

China has swallowed Africa for all it's resources. It has sewn up good deals for oil in central Asia, Iran, venzuela. China has made all the right moves so far.

 

[Ray]

The tone of the article indicates some sort of a worry about the US intentions and attempts at covering this fear with a coating of self induced soothing balm with the usual ploy to deflect adverse situations, that we all see every time in debate with the Chinese - the focus on economy towards mutual benefit.


The Chinese are very concerned about the economy and does not want it to be disturbed in any way with extraneous considerations. There pursuit, notwithstanding pious protestation, is supremacy in all spheres. That is but natural.

It must be noted that this dovelike noises does not in any way tones down the Chinese hegemonic pursuits, flashes of which one sees now and then. The hegemonic attempts is not to seize any land or territory, but merely to keep it alive, so that in times to come, when China is strong enough in all respect, enforce its claim, even by force.


As far as the US or any country is concerned, there is always disquiet over some issue or the other domestically that skews the apple cart for those in power in that country. Therefore, the ideal way to unite the people is through Fear - fear of another nation or ideology triumphing over them.


Hence, if Osama is dead, someone with be invented, or for that matter, the worry of the AQ will continue since AQ, itself is an ideology that is being promoted by frustrated Muslim elements who find the world against their ascendancy to power and rule! Therefore, even the Muslims of the world will not give way. The namaz e janazas all over the world should show that they are steadfast in their pursuits too! Further, though there are those amongst the Muslim world, who genuine condemn Osama and even the namaz e janazas, in the final analysis, in conclusion most of such liberal always state that all this is because Osama has become an icon to the Muslim world. In other words, indeed Osama is the focus of perceived injustices to the Muslim world, even if Osama's activities are deemed unIslamic.

It is all a game for power and jousting for space for supremacy.

 

[p2prada]

A Rival, yes. A Foe, I don't think so.

After Bin Laden, the next Bin Laden will become US foe.

 

[natarajan]

When our nation stops sending dossiers and swing into action.Its becoming a day dream for india to say super power.Even the caught terrorist were not hanged(kasab),i dont know what prevents them to hang .Atleast these kind of terrorists should be punished quickly as we dont expect usa like operations.

 

[Ray]

On the issue of Rival or Foe, I am reminded of Sun Tsu.

He said:

For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.

 

[Ray]

I personally don't think that the US, in any way, is really deviating from its goal to keep China from becoming a rival. The US' aim is to keep China within it own boundaries and encourage greater social and economic disparity between the haves and have nots, between the rural and the urban (all this globalisation is also working along this line for India too!)

It is doing everything in the book to ensure that China cannot expand its influence along its periphery.

As I see it, the US is not concerned if China expands its influence in Africa or Iran and is forced to subsidise the economies of Africa. They are well aware that even in such ventures, they will upset powerful local lobbies and the result will be grievances that boomerangs. If one recalls there was a huge shenanigan over some Chinese plant manager shooting down an unruly African labour and the hullabaloo over the unequal pay between the Chinese and African workers. After all, even if one does want to help, there are enough reasons why the locals will complain and look a gift horse in the teeth.

For instance, how many Bangladeshis feel close to India even though India got them their Liberation?

As the Americans complain - Help and be damned. Don't help and still be damned!

It is applicable to all donor countries.

 

[prototype]

China already have its influence both over Africa and South america,China is playing the same game US played so far,spread the influence as far as u can,somehow I think US had lost Asia,its not US who is the detrimental factor here,and China is taking the match to new horizon's,let see how US cope up with it.

 

[amoy]

The tone of the article indicates some sort of a worry about the US intentions and attempts at covering this fear with a coating of self induced soothing balm with the usual ploy to deflect adverse situations, that we all see every time in debate with the Chinese - the focus on economy towards mutual benefit.

This has to do with Chinese mindset (cultivated by the ruling CCP) such as economic engagement is the anchor for Sino-US relationship... or high-speed economic growth (a bigger pie) is a cure-all for internal problems. And with education - such as "economy is the foundation on which "upper structures" are built like politics, arts, religion"...

Of course such an ostrich thinking (in part) is changing.

 

[Ray]

This has to do with Chinese mindset (cultivated by the ruling CCP) such as economic engagement is the anchor for Sino-US relationship... or high-speed economic growth (a bigger pie) is a cure-all for internal problems. And with education - such as "economy is the foundation on which "upper structures" are built like politics, arts, religion"...

Of course such an ostrich thinking (in part) is changing.

Technically, the road map of China is good and even laudable.

But the realpolitik plays a role and that is missing.

The inputs of the US and the reactions thereof cannot be ruled out of the overall Chinese Vision of the Future.

 

[tarunraju]

There is very little insight into how the author thinks the US would turn China into its next Bete Noir. War on Terrorâ„¢ drives a huge internal security industry within the US military industrial complex. It can't just fade away in the next 10 or so years. It costs more to secure your country from a vague terrorist network than from an organised potential adversary in the form of a nation. Strange but true. In other words, the military industrial complex lobby in the US government would rather see the US unsafe from within, than from outside. The civilians across the world should tune themselves to live in an increasingly restricted environment. There will be more pointless terrorist organisations being funded by the people who want to sell you the means to protect yourselves from them.

 

[prototype]

Well,it can be said military industrial complex is one of the most influential in the world,it promotes innovation,scientific growth,produce employment and bolster the economy,US found a good foe in Soviet Union to promote this industry,the difference is the governance of both the nation's justified this,create a paranoia and all ur wishes are completed with a whole lot of nation's joining in.

But after the fall of Soviet and due to the end of cold war now it was not justified to push more and more money in this complex,it created a big void,hence US was in search of a nation that can fill the void,and here came China,the next biggest economic behemoth,it was justified to paint them as an adversary as it also followed the same governance system of USSR(atleast on paper) and their recent assertiveness helped the matter,bring in a new country and develop altogether a new equation,thus u have some new nation's joining in and a new market developing.It was all natural for US to make China their new adversary,i dont think presence of al qaeda is applicable here,as its presence is anyway redundant to American military complex's interest.

 

[amoy]

Frankly Al Qaeda or Iraq have allowed China to buy some time. Besides China's influence in Africa or S. America is overhyped. For the time being China (and Chinese) lack the same confidence as the US (and Americans) have over their nation. Every American I met is very much assured abt superiority of their values, social system and power but hardly do Chinese except economic potential. CCP has got aphasia over them unlike Mao's era

 

[Virendra]

Frankly Al Qaeda or Iraq have allowed China to buy some time. Besides China's influence in Africa or S. America is overhyped. For the time being China (and Chinese) lack the same confidence as the US (and Americans) have over their nation. Every American I met is very much assured abt superiority of their values, social system and power but hardly do Chinese except economic potential. CCP has got aphasia over them unlike Mao's era

Could agree with the confidence part, but isn't it true that China has been on a buying spree in resource rich Africa and S. America?
It will be a big advantage for China to maintain momentum in the long run, specially when the going would get tough for every nation with scarcer natural resources.
I'm looking at the picture of one or two decades later.


Regards,
Virendra

 

[prototype]

Anyway it can be said that China does not seems to be happy with the news,no official reaction,the only reaction that came was for defending its all weather ally and mentioning how trustworthy is it.

 

[amoy]

no official reaction,the only reaction that came was for defending its all weather ally and mentioning how trustworthy is it.

Believe this has to be viewed side by side with below report right ahead of death of Osama

Source: Pakistan's PM urged Afghans to seek other allies besides U.S.AFGHANISTAN
April 28, 2011|By Jill Dougherty, CNN Foreign Affairs Correspondent


Pakistani Prime Minister Syed Yousaf Raza Gilani looks on as he meets with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on July 18, 2010 in Islamabad shortly before the signing of a new trade transit treaty between Pakistan and Afghanistan.Pakistan's prime minister urged Afghan government officials to look for other partners to ally with beyond the United States in a meeting earlier this month, and suggested it seek closer ties with China, a source close to the Afghan government told CNN.

But Afghan sources disagree on how strongly the Pakistanis were trying to push their neighbors, and there is no indication from either source CNN spoke to about the Afghan government's receptiveness to the idea.

At the meeting between senior Afghan and Pakistani officials April 16 in Kabul, Afghanistan, Pakistani Prime Minister Yousaf Gilani urged the Afghans to draw closer to Pakistan and to China, disengaging with what he depicted as a weakened United States, according to the source close to the Afghan government.

 

[ejazr]

The Chinese are steeped in realist thinking. They know that as China's relative power vis a vis US increases, it will eventually put it in conflict if not tense relationship with the US. The US realises this too and is trying to manage the relationship.

At present the US is still quite powerful and if it seriously wants to contain China, it can do so. But the US does not see it necessary at this stage and it is in any case diverted with Iraq, Afghanistan and now the Arab Spring revolutions. Its inherent that when a country rises to great power status, it will have conflict with the current superpower. Chinese would try to delay the conflict until China is well past the US in terms of econmy, militarypower, global influence e.t.c so that it can take over the mantle with the least amount of resistance. The other option is what many Americans have mooted about, that is the China US co-operation on world affairs or the G2, which basically divides the world in their spheres of influence and helping each other maintain their hegemony.

This article is probably a little paranoid, but the concern is there pretty much and the Chinese are quite wary of US intentions. The Al Qaeda issue was a policing problem that was not tackled correctly by Bush. Espicially by his invasion of Iraq and what not. Al Qaeda was not an existential threat to the US but a major security issue, just like piracy in the Arabia sea is a major security issue. It would have been an existential risk if muslims all over the world had accepted his ideology of killing civilians and sucide bombings e.t.c. and lashed out against the US but overwhelmingly this has been rejected. Now what would be smart for the US to do now is roll back on Iraq and Afghanistan, cutdown unnecessary expenses on security and refocus their energies on building their economy and tackling more important questions like tackling the Arab revolutions and guiding them towards a democratic, sucessful end and ofcourse make sure that China's rise is managed effectively by building up a coalition of like minded nations. Obama has already done this move by getting rid of terminilogy like "War on Terror" (you can't declare war on an idea, its like war on crime or war on drugs - never ending) and using more directed and accurate terms like fight against Al Qaeda and its affliates. This more focussed counter terrorism approach that is the need of the hour has led to increased drone strikes and assasinations of terror leaders like OBM

There was an interesting article on the National Journal on the cost of getting OBL or the "war on terror" in general. A good read for those interested that had ainteresting infographic.

The article is here
NationalJournal.com - The Cost of bin Laden: $3 Trillion Over 15 Years - Friday, May 6, 2011