Comments on: How China Gambit Backfired

By: nirvana

nirvana — Wed, 27 Jul 2011 01:39:10 +0000

“China does not station troops outside its border”.
This depends on how China define its border. Also, it remains to see whether China is satisfied with its current border. Don’t ever believe in powerful states to be contended with their borders. Even when most Chinese are peaceful, a powerful military China state will act as any powerful states: British, French, German, Japan, Soviet, US,… This is History and it can repeat itself.

By: nirvana

nirvana — Wed, 27 Jul 2011 01:31:58 +0000

US and China (and most of the West) combined their efforts … to support Pol Pot! For 10 years, the Khmer Rouge kept their seats at the United Nations (1979-1989). Don’t ever believe in states (especially militarily powerful ones) to build a better world. Believe instead in their people (Chinese are great people too).

By: Lee

Lee — Sat, 12 Feb 2011 23:35:44 +0000

Singh,

“String of Pearls” policy of encirclement is coined by Indians.
Are you just repeating what your Defence Minister said. Can you substantiate it with solid proof. Periodic stop over at friendly ports call does not constitute using that ports as a Naval Base and China do not have any bases or station any troops in these countries. As a matter of fact China do not station any troops outside her border.

Most of China maritime trade have to pass thru the Indian Ocean and naturally you will expect to see more Chinese Naval vessels patrolling and escorting their own merchant vessels in future.

By: Guozhen

Guozhen — Wed, 22 Dec 2010 13:22:28 +0000

A reality check. Who emits the highest carbon footprint on a per capita basis? Who talks about currency undervaluation and is the greatest debtor nation? And which country remove the gold standard? And which country is able to stir up tension in the Korean Peninsula and the Japan sea without throwing shit on it’s borders? Wake up your ideas!

By: Kuang Guozhen

Kuang Guozhen — Wed, 22 Dec 2010 13:15:08 +0000

Time the pre-eminent world power validate itself by leading by example than telling everyone what to do. Failure to correct it’s own behaviour will only widen it’s credibility gap.

By: Singh

Singh — Sat, 14 Aug 2010 05:15:13 +0000

Harry,
Yeah! What a load of rubbish!Have you heard of the “string of pearls” policy of encirclement of India by china. Chinese naval ports in Burma, Sri Lanka and Pakistan!Providing Pakistan with nuclear and missile technology to be a thorn on India’s side!Making regular border incursions into India just to throw it’s weight around!Now you know that china is not the innocent little country either.Wake up to reality buddy, this is international politics!No one is the nice guy!Everyone is looking after their own interests. I would welcome a knowledgeable response from you.

By: Cal

Cal — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 23:01:22 +0000

U.S. and China should combine their efforts for a better world.

By: Van Must

Van Must — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 06:08:41 +0000

This is typical talking head nonsense. The US never offered to make China a “full partner” in anything, and it never will. The Obama strategy was basically the Clinton strategy redo, namely try to improve relations primarily by working through economic and trade issues.

And as for the hyperbolic “the greatest foreign policy mistake in recent memory…” I think it would be pretty hard to top Bush Iraq war on that score…

By: Don Bacon

Don Bacon — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 18:55:05 +0000

It should be no surprise that China has rebuffed the US’s “offering China more influence in the international order’ when China already has it.

So China had every right to become “far more antagonistic and assertive” when it came to matters within their own sphere of influence, like the South China and Yellow Seas. Why should these faraway places be part of any US interest?

And why shouldn’t “influential voices in Beijing [see] the United States as a power in decline”? It’s true, and as a part of that, China is the US’s principal foreign banker and its principal goods supplier.

So “China simply isn’t interested in becoming a full stakeholder in the US-led liberal international order.” No surprise. What kind of “multilateralism” is that?

“Americans are used to countries being friends or enemies?” No, the US is used to countries being vassals or enemies. Now, “the US will be faced with a more competitive world than it has over the past 20 years (although unlike the Cold War, it will be a competition within limits, between interdependent powers, and with plenty of potential for cooperation).” That’s true, and it needn’t be a problem. It can even be an asset, allowing space for other countries to get involved in protecting sea lanes from pirates, for one example.

So yes, this is “a catalyst for a more competitive—and geopolitically savvy—US multilateralism” and needn’t be a cause of despair.

The US had better catch on, because China is forming strong links with Taiwan, Japan and India, and even (particularly commercially) with New Zealand and Australia while the US has petty scraps with Japan (over Okinawa) and China (South China and Yellow Seas).

By: The_Observer

The_Observer — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 06:32:33 +0000

The Chinese are working on their currency. Currently they are starting with building up their financial industry in terms of equity, commodity and currency markets. They are also doing currency swaps with neighbouring countries and ones as far away as Argentina and Belarus. The Chinese don’t do things in big leaps and they usually dip their toe in the waters first. That way if mistakes are made, the effect can be contained. When the Chinese privatize enough state companies and develop their bond markets is when I expect the yuan to be allowed to float.