Discussing Biden's Potential China Policy

  • Thread starter Deleted member 15887
  • Start date

ansy1968

Brigadier
Registered Member
We need to unconditionally support Middle East and Russia. The american nazis murdered civilians as well in the latest airstrikes. We need to build interoperational capabilities with the Iranians and Russia. They have more operational experience against american forces that are helpful for china to learn and exercise.
@j17wang , The China , Iran and Russia axis is a very strong deterrent against the US hegemony, each nation providing defense posture for each other so that they can focus their attention to their own sphere of influence and interest. with B&R it will be stronger not only economically but logistic as well. Iran is the easiest target among the three, That is the reason why the US won't leave Afghanistan and will try to destabilized Syria to encircle her to submit. And another thing Iran is more strategic than Saudi Arabia and Israel combine. They had a civilized Culture ,the manpower and intellectual ability/ capacity to be a regional power.
 
Last edited:

escobar

Brigadier
With the tech war ongoing, here is the coming Clean Network program in shipbuilding to deterred companies from doing business with China shipbuilders. The revenue generated from foreign sales are critical to advancing China’s shipbuilding industry, and it is hard to imagine this financial boon not also paying dividends for the ongoing modernization of the PLAN.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

OppositeDay

Senior Member
Registered Member
With the tech war ongoing, here is the coming Clean Network program in shipbuilding to deterred companies from doing business with China shipbuilders. The revenue generated from foreign sales are critical to advancing China’s shipbuilding industry, and it is hard to imagine this financial boon not also paying dividends for the ongoing modernization of the PLAN.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Yes, and Chinese shipping companies will have access to cheaper ships, beat out their foreign competitors, take their business and order more Chinese ships.
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
From the front page of the Economist.
Although I am wondering why they use the subtitle "God's Playground"
And why is asean not written as ASEAN like it normally is?

---


The battle for China’s backyard
The rivalry between America and China will hinge on South-East Asia

China’s advantages in the tussle are not as big as they seem


During their 45-year feud, America and the Soviet Union fought proxy battles all across the world. But the cold war was at its most intense in Europe, where the Soviets constantly worried about their satellites breaking away, and America always fretted that its allies were going soft. The contest between China and America, happily, is different from that. For one thing, the two sides armed forces are not glowering at one another across any front lines—although in Taiwan and North Korea each has an ally in a tense, decades-long stand-off with the other. Even so, in the rivalry between the two powers, there will be a main zone of contention: South-East Asia. And although the region has drawn up no clear battle-lines, that only makes the competition more complex.

People across South-East Asia already see America and China as two poles, pulling their countries in opposite directions. Those protesting against the recent military coup in Myanmar, for example, hold up angry placards that attack China for backing the generals and pleading ones that beg America to intervene. Governments feel under pressure to pick sides. In 2016 Rodrigo Duterte, the president of the Philippines, loudly announced his country’s “separation from America” and pledged allegiance to China instead. China’s claim that almost all the South China Sea lies within its territorial waters and America’s rejection of that assertion have sparked blazing rows in the main regional club, the Association of South-East Asian Nations (asean), which China has attempted to win over.

This tug-of-war will only become more fierce, for two reasons. First, South-East Asia is of enormous strategic importance to China. It is on China’s doorstep, astride the trade routes along which oil and other raw materials are transported to China and finished goods are shipped out. Whereas China is hemmed in to its east by Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, all firm American allies, South-East Asia is less hostile terrain, providing potential access to both the Indian and Pacific Oceans, for both commercial and military purposes. Only by becoming the pre-eminent power in South-East Asia can China relieve its sense of claustrophobia.

But South-East Asia is not just a way-station en route to other places. The second reason competition over it will intensify is that it is an ever more important part of the world in its own right. It is home to 700m people—more than the European Union, Latin America or the Middle East. Its economy, were it a single country, would be the fourth-biggest in the world after adjusting for the cost of living, behind only China itself, America and India. And it is growing fast. The economies of Indonesia and Malaysia have been expanding by 5-6% for a decade; those of the Philippines and Vietnam by 6-7%. Poorer countries in the region, such as Myanmar and Cambodia, are growing even faster. For investors hedging against China, South-East Asia has become the manufacturing hub of choice. Its consumers are now rich enough to comprise an alluring market. In commercial as well as geopolitical terms, South-East Asia is a prize.

Of the two competitors, China looks the more likely prize-winner. It is the region’s biggest trading partner, and pumps in more investment than America does. At least one South-East Asian country, Cambodia, is in effect already a Chinese client state. And none is willing to cross China by openly siding with America in the superpowers’ many rows.

However, as close as South-East Asia’s ties with China appear, they are also fraught (see article). Chinese investment, although prodigious, has its drawbacks. Chinese firms are often accused of corruption or environmental depredation. Many prefer to employ imported Chinese workers rather than locals, reducing the benefits to the economy. Then there is the insecurity bred by China’s alarming habit of using curbs on trade and investment to punish countries that displease it (see article).

China also dismays its neighbours by throwing its weight around militarily. Its seizure and fortification of shoals and reefs in the South China Sea, and its harassment of South-East Asian vessels trying to fish or drill for oil in nearby waters, is a source of tension with almost all the countries of the region, from Vietnam to Indonesia. China also maintains ties with insurgents fighting against the democratic government of Myanmar, and has in the past backed guerrillas all over the region.

This sort of belligerence makes China unpopular in much of South-East Asia—building, alas, on dismaying traditions of prejudice. Anti-Chinese riots often erupt in Vietnam. Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim country, has seen protests about everything from illegal Chinese immigration to China’s treatment of its Muslim minority. Even in tiny Laos, a communist dictatorship where public dissent is almost unheard of, whispered gripes about Chinese domination are commonplace. South-East Asian leaders may not dare criticise China openly, for fear of the economic consequences, but they are also wary of being too accommodating, for fear of their own citizens.

China’s bid for hegemony in South-East Asia is thus far from assured. South-East Asian governments have no wish to renounce trade with and investment from their prosperous neighbour. But they also want what America wants: peace and stability and a rules-based order in which China does not get its way by dint of sheer heft. Like all middling powers, the big countries of South-East Asia have an incentive to hedge their bets, and see what favours they can extract from the Goliaths of the day.

God’s playground

To help South-East Asia avoid slipping into China’s orbit, America should encourage it to keep its options open and build counterweights to Chinese influence. One mechanism is more regional integration. As it is, trade and investment among the countries of South-East Asia outweigh the business they do with China. Another mechanism is to strengthen ties with other Asian countries such as Japan and South Korea—one asean has rightly embraced. Above all, America should not fall into the trap of trying to force its members to pick sides. That is the one thing South-East Asia is determined to resist.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Last edited:

horse

Major
Registered Member
From the front page of the Economist.
Although I am wondering why they use the subtitle "God's Playground"
And why is asean not written as ASEAN like it normally is?
Yeah, I think I know what you are talking about here, that feeling that this article misses the mark.

They did not talk about the Chinese diaspora in the region and all those connections that move business.

They did not talk about the relative peace in the region that over 50 years and going, the only 2 major wars in the region involved the Americans.

They did not talk about how the RCEP will double their economic output in about 10 years, that mainly from growth internally and trade with each other and with China. Heck, they did not even bring up the RCEP!

Then they imagine or scheme plots or openings where they can play a role to help themselves. This scheming seems still based on ideas of their own importance, and the others' shortcomings. That is why the west is not playing much of a role now, and with ASEAN getting stronger, the west will play an increasingly lesser role in the future. From the typical underestimating of others, they build this illusion of western grandeur in ASEAN, which does not really exist.

The article seems to be a bunch of suggestions based on a faulty view of the region.

You know, people outside the region, such as in the west, does not know much about the region. The Economist is still an influential magazine read in the west. The Economist is peddling bad information it seems.

Then again, maybe that is the point. They are just writing something that their audience wants to hear. You know, with the signing of the RCEP where America is cut off, America has already loss in ASEAN, but according to The Economist, they still have a chance in South-East-Asia if they use these suggestions.

:)
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Yeah, I think I know what you are talking about here, that feeling that this article misses the mark.

They did not talk about the Chinese diaspora in the region and all those connections that move business.

They did not talk about the relative peace in the region that over 50 years and going, the only 2 major wars in the region involved the Americans.

They did not talk about how the RCEP will double their economic output in about 10 years, that mainly from growth internally and trade with each other and with China. Heck, they did not even bring up the RCEP!

Then they imagine or scheme plots or openings where they can play a role to help themselves. This scheming seems still based on ideas of their own importance, and the others' shortcomings. That is why the west is not playing much of a role now, and with ASEAN getting stronger, the west will play an increasingly lesser role in the future. From the typical underestimating of others, they build this illusion of western grandeur in ASEAN, which does not really exist.

The article seems to be a bunch of suggestions based on a faulty view of the region.

You know, people outside the region, such as in the west, does not know much about the region. The Economist is still an influential magazine read in the west. The Economist is peddling bad information it seems.

Then again, maybe that is the point. They are just writing something that their audience wants to hear. You know, with the signing of the RCEP where America is cut off, America has already loss in ASEAN, but according to The Economist, they still have a chance in South-East-Asia if they use these suggestions.

:)

Well, the article does acknowledge the China is more likely to be the winner in any competition in SE Asia.

I think the issue is that a substantial proportion of the writers are based in the USA and are rather young,
So they automatically start with the American exceptionalism mindset.
And yes, it's very difficult that notion to be disabused.

But I think it's getting better.

I remember pointing out a glaring analytical mistake in an article which argued that the USA was poised to dominate the future of transpacific trade at the expense of China. But how likely is that, given that countries tend to trade more with their neighbours, along with a Chinese economy which is bigger and also growing much faster?

There's more articles below, which have more coverage on Chinese links in the region.
But yes, somehow they've forgotten to mention the positive effects of RCEP and the failure of the TPP

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
We need to unconditionally support Middle East and Russia. The american nazis murdered civilians as well in the latest airstrikes. We need to build interoperational capabilities with the Iranians and Russia. They have more operational experience against american forces that are helpful for china to learn and exercise.

Please keep the conversation civil and constructive
 

escobar

Brigadier
We need to unconditionally support Middle East and Russia. The american nazis murdered civilians as well in the latest airstrikes. We need to build interoperational capabilities with the Iranians and Russia. They have more operational experience against american forces that are helpful for china to learn and exercise.
What CH has done to Iranian to receive their unconditional support...
 
Top