Discussion in 'China' started by W.G.Ewald, May 30, 2013.
America's China mistake - latimes.com
US views China as a threat but does she view her as an enemy?
Are you suggesting Obama administration needs to have a coherent foreign policy?
Not that I am suggesting something but yes I am interested to know where it stands.
Two things to be understood here.
Notwithstanding all of its shortcomings, US foreign policy is anything but "incoherent". Second, no matter what the US foreign policy pronouncements tend to make us believe, we need to understand one thing for sure: "With-us-or-Against-us" is not the maxim that US follows.
So, categorization of nations as "friends" & "foes" is naive, over-simplistic & not something that their policies subscribe too.
One cornerstone of their foreign policy is (like every single nation-state) is protection of American interests "globally" by "maintaining the American pre-eminence in this 21st century" & ensuring "energy security". Now, to achieve this, they apply all means at their disposal & one of that maintaining strategic balance among different powers in the world.
They maintain this strategic balance by implementing a simple hedging strategy against all powers. In simple words, what they do is:
1) Hedge China against Russia (Russia is a status-quo-ist power w.r.t. China but China is a revisionist power w.r.t. Russia & US)
2) Hedge Japan + India against China (India + Japan are status-quo-ist powers w.r.t. US & Russia but revisionist power w.r.t. China)
3) Hedge Pakistan against India (Now, Pak is status-quo-ist powers w.r.t. US & China but revisionist power w.r.t. India)
4) Hedge Afghanistan against Pakistan (Now, Afghanistan is status-quo-ist powers w.r.t. India & China but revisionist power w.r.t. Pakistan)
5) Hedge Taliban against Afghanistan (Now, Taliban is a revisionist power w.r.t. Pakistan, India & China but status-quo-ist against US, irrepsecive of their ongoing hostilies in Af-Pak)
When you delve deep into the relative equations mentioned above, your perception of US foreign policy might not undergo sea-change, but at the very least, you would understand that these things & new phenomenon unfolding across nations are not simply random developments (they are inter-related) & how interplay's occur, is not too complex to understand, ever for a layman.
kindly pls eleborate jargons like "status quo ist" power, and "revisionist" power. Gracias.
Sent from my 5910 using Tapatalk 2
status quo = maintain the current de facto state, revisionist = seeking to change the status quo
This exercise may be for the sake of demonstrating USN power.
Bill Clinton accepted donations from China when he ran for president and China got access tol him, including classified information, after he was elected. His party has been obligated to China since that time.
That's a fact.
Mao was status quoist and he accused Russian Communist to be revisionists...
Russians accused Mao to be the revisionist in that he professed revolution through peasents....
US naval power is very much expeditionary. ie. The US Navy and Airforce are actively planning an assault on the Chinese coast and well into its mainland territory. "Air-Sea-Battle" they're calling it.
DF21D is quite clearly a defensive weapon, an Anti-Access weapon against large US navy surface vessels operating 1000km off the Chinese mainland... If it could engage targets near the US coast or even in the Atlantic, I'd understand what this article was pushing.
What does this LA times editor suggest China do? Not develop any countermeasures against US forces in the Pacific and rely on Washington's goodwill?
Yeah, face 60% of the US Navy and hundreds of US Airforce combat aircraft forward deployed well within strike range of the Chinese mainland with goodwill *scoffs*
It's as if only the States and their allies have the right to defend themselves. In this case, its a case of the US armed forces having the right to encroach right up to other countries coasts with impunity.
What exactly do you want China's Navy to do Ewald? I'm curious...
Not what I want PLAN to do, or what US forces commanders want them to do. I want US forces to maintain a capability o confront any threat. I do not see Us forces encroaching on any country. "Well within strike range" does not mean violation of borders.
It means hundreds of strike aircraft - from F16's, F15 C,D, E's, B1's to even F22's and B2's could and would engage Chinese targets on Chinese soil from bases in Guam and even closer at Kadena in Japan within minutes should the White House decide so.
That is the reality today, and you'll notice that I'm not even mentioning the over 100 cruisers, aircraft carriers, LHD's, SSN's, SSGN's, LPD's DDG's etc etc operating or based well within striking range of the Chinese mainland and maritime territories..
What amazes me is that your LA times article wants to paint the PLAN as some kind of unprovoked aggressor actively threatening US forces in the Pacific for the hell of it.
If the Chinese armed forces had this kind of overwhelming force based and operating within strike range of the US mainland, we'd be at war already. The Cuban Missile Crisis proved that way back in the Cold War.
So I'll simplify my question then.
Does China - the second largest and soon to be largest economy on earth with 4 times America's population - not have the right to protect its sovereignty and populace against a force much more devastating than the terrorists America has been at war with for the past decade?
Are your countrymen and family entitled to more security than mine are?
Because that's what your article is saying in essence: The PLAN must not have the capability to defend its territories and peoples against the US armed forces in China's backyard, forces aimed at China quite specifically( you don't need 60% of the US Navy to nullify the North Korean Threat)
USN is not a threat to China, it is an obstacle to Chinese territorial ambitions.
The USN is aimed at maintaining status quo in the Pacific. Period. Or is there some other meaning to "re-balancing" That I've missed?
All this protecting "freedom" (not surprisingly, words used by both the Bush's) BS is just that. BS.
Need I remind you that Japan has numerous maritime disputes with countries other than China (mostly dating back to its Imperial days as is the case with the Diaoyu's)? Or that Taiwan has almost exactly the same maritime claims against Japan, the Philippines, Vietnam etc that China does?
Are the US forces in the Pacific also "protecting" the region from Taiwan's " territorial ambitions" as well? If the US Navy was a "stabilizing force" in the Pacific as you say, would it not also be safeguarding Korean, Russian etc interests against Japanese claims as well?
As was the case in the Gulf, American forces are used in the US's best economic and political interest, trying to sugarcoat it into a China's the bad guy and the US's allies are all good guys is classic Washington PR.
There are no bad and good guys in international politics, its not black and white like that. There are only competing national interests and the soft and hard power to back those interests. And right now, a dominant China in the Pacific region is not in the US's interests, as shown by the US armed forces "pivot towards" China.
Anything more than that about "freedom" and the like is just White house PR, something a global hegemon must utilize to placate the international and domestic masses
Now I'll ask again: Does China not have the right to protect its own interests as well as your article suggests? Because as a citizen of the PRC I also want PLA "forces to maintain a capability o confront any threat." because unlike you Ewald, swathed in the safety of the America's,my livelihood and safety and that of my family depends on it most dearly.
We all know what happened to the Iraqi's...
Countries don't have rights. Individuals have rights. I expect my government to provide national defense (so I can be "swathed in safety"). If that entails treaties for mutual defense with Pacific nations and bumping up against China's territorial ambitions, so be it. I understand that you want national defense from PLA etc. in a similar manner. But China's interest in fact extend beyond its national defense.
Considering the many threads on DFI having to do with the perception of Chinese - - for the lack of better words - - territorial aggression, I don't expect you and I will ever see things the same. Your tone approaches self-pity; but USA is not a threat to you and your family. Conflict of US with China has a low probability. Do you really something otherwise?
By the way, I disagree with LA Times article about China's participation in the exercise. US has no greater liability there than China does IMHO.
How so? How is China's interests extending beyond its national defense? Currently, other than nuclear weapons, no hostile nation has large-scale, unblockable, conventional weapons platforms in range of the US homeland. What if China wants to extend the same criterion to itself - to create 2000km+ 'cordon sanitaire' around Chinese borders where every single nation is either an ally or militarily harmless? Why should only America have that comfortable right to itself, while China must live in a literal state of terror every day at B2s and F22s kicking down its front door, to quote General John P Jumper?
If conflict of US with China has a low probability, then what are all those USN and USAF assets in the Western Pacific for?
no it certainly is not too complex for anyone who can read to understand
EXCEPT when the war actually starts - then it will be IMPOSSIBLE to understand
make up your minds now ! later will be too late !! - im talking about usa's view of china
sure it cant be simplistic - but eventually there is going to be an overall tilt - with you are with us or you are not
( sounds familiar ? )
whatever it takes ! we gotta do it - cos failure will mean ........... look at tibet !
Separate names with a comma.