Obama has no wish to conjure the spectre of a new cold war but is determined to beat back any Chinese bid for hegemony
Comments (295)
Simon Tisdall
guardian.co.uk, Friday 6 January 2012 18.54 GMT
Article history
President Barack Obama and General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff (right) outline the US defence strategy at the Pentagon - without mentioning China Photograph: Greg E. Mathieson, Sr/Rex Features
Barack Obama made a special trip to the Pentagon this week to unveil America's post-Iraq, post-Afghanistan defence strategy. But amid all the president's talk about a leaner American military, evolving challenges of the new century, and shifting priorities after a decade of warfare, one particular word was nowhere to be heard: China.
The omission is understandable, but misleading. As a politician running for re-election as a peacemaker, Obama has no wish to conjure the spectre of a new cold war with the only serious challenger to America as number one global superpower.
But as his recent Asian tour made clear, Obama – born in Hawaii – is determined to beat back any Chinese bid for hegemony in Asia-Pacific. The focus of the strategy is concentrated on this cockpit region.
As chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General Martin Dempsey likewise has no interest in starting a fight with Beijing so soon after extricating US forces from Baghdad. But Dempsey knows China's defence spending is growing each year. As the strategy document urges, this growth "must be accompanied by greater clarity [about] strategic intentions in order to avoid causing friction in the region".
Dempsey sees how China's submarines and missile platforms, soon to be backed up by an aircraft carrier taskforce, are projecting naval power into regions where the US has dominated since 1945.
In short, he can read the writing on the Chinese wall and understands that one day, however reluctantly, the US military may be obliged to overtly confront China just as it faced down the old Soviet Union.
"The strategy talks about a shift to the future," Dempsey said, standing alongside Obama at the Pentagon.
"And all of the trends, demographic trends, geopolitical trends, economic trends and military trends are shifting toward the Pacific. So our strategic challenges will largely emanate out of the Pacific region, but also the littorals of the Indian Ocean."
Still no specific mention of China. But there was no doubting who and what Dempsey was talking about. And in case anybody missed the point, the US defence secretary, Leon Panetta, drove it home with due deference to both sides' political sensibilities.
"This region is growing in importance to the future of the US economy and our national security. This means, for instance, improving capabilities that maintain our military's technological edge and freedom of action," he said.
Beijing has yet to give a direct response. But the Global Times, an offshoot of the Communist party's People's Daily, swiftly made it clear China would be ready to match the US step for step, wherever that uncharted path might lead.
"Of course we want to prevent a new cold war with the United States, but at the same time, we must avoid giving up China's security presence in the neighbouring region," it said in an editorial. The Xinhua news agency warned that increased US engagement could boost stability but warned American militarism might "endanger peace".
The parameters of the coming 21st century US-China contest are already fairly clear. In purely physical terms, they include obvious potential flashpoints such as Taiwan, last resting place of the defeated nationalist Kuomintang. Beijing regards Taiwan as a "renegade province".
Although bilateral relations have improved of late, itChina still menaces Taipei across the Taiwan strait with hundreds of land-based missiles. As de facto guarantor of Taiwan's security and chief arms supplier, the US is caught in a frozen conflict that could catch fire at any time.
China's pursuit of territorial and resource claims in disputed archipelagos across the East and South China seas provide other flashpoints, not just with the US but with neighbours such as Vietnam, which have been tightening security ties with Washington.
Fears about the implications of China's rise are producing a similar circling of the wagons in Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Malaysia and Australia, notwithstanding their close trading relationships with Beijing.
During his Asian tour, Obama signalled the opening of a military base in Darwin and possibly one in the Philippines. Ballistic missile defence co-operation with Tokyo is well advanced, although this has more to do with North Korea than China.
Amid overall global troop cuts, the US military presence in South Korea and Japan will be maintained. Safeguarding international sea lanes is a key priority.
The US-China standoff has numerous other potential and actual aspects. In geo-strategic terms, Washington's desire to manage if not contain China's ambitions lies behind the rapprochement with India begun by the Bush administration. China's efforts to expand its presence in the Indian Ocean, through trade, aid and investment deals with Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Tanzania, to name three, are seen in Delhi as the south Asian equivalent of America's perceived "encirclement" of China.
The US took on China at its own game in Burma, expanding diplomatic relations with an unpleasant regime to counter Beijing's position as a key ally. The desire to support democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi is genuine. But calculated self-interest was at work, too. Perhaps somebody should tell William Hague.
On a bigger scale again, a battle for raw materials, economic resources, political influence and military footholds is under way in sub-Saharan Africa, where China has placed commercial advantage ahead of governance and human rights concerns, and increasingly in Latin America.
US behaviour is not exemplary, either. It talks a lot about democracy but its chief concern, especially in the Maghreb and Sahel regions, is security and terrorism, hence the recent creation of the Pentagon's Africa Command.
China also presents a growing diplomatic and political challenge, whether it be through its protection of North Korea or its reluctance to support action against problematic regimes such as Syria, Iran and, arguably, Sudan.
China's failure to act responsibly as a "good citizen" on the world stage, as American critics see it, is mirrored economically by its policy of maintaining an artificially under-valued currency to boost its exports, and its reluctance to help bail out stricken eurozone economies in the absence of specific rewards.
The fact that it is by far the biggest holder of American government debt is a two-edged sword – but undoubtedly places Washington at a potential disadvantage.
A 21st century US-China cold war is not an inevitability. It's possible the relationship can be managed to the benefit of both sides, given goodwill, good leadership and good luck.
But fundamental ideological differences about democracy, openness, values, and religious belief, compounding political and economic rivalries, may ultimately confound efforts to work together.
Historically, China is behaving just like any other up and coming great power, just like Britain in the 19th century and the US in the 20th: confident, brash and convinced of its own superiority. Obama's defence strategy hopes for the best – and prepares for the worst.
***
295 Comments
BobShkibold
6 January 2012 06:57PM
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs
dirkbruere
6 January 2012 07:04PM
There's no need for really expensive weapons systems like the F35, B2 or anti-ballistic missiles if one is fighting guys carrying AK47s and riding donkeys - and losing.
China makes a far better enemy from the point of view of the weapons industries.
FidelCastro1
6 January 2012 07:06PM
Ah America, self-appointed world policemen causing a fuss wherever they go. Don't you just love 'em.
KravMaga
6 January 2012 07:15PM
For all of its supposed economic and military power China is actually a very fragile country.
China and the US are rivals but they also have a symbiotic relationship. They need each other's markets and finances.
Both sides value the stability of good relations and I doubt either side is interested in a Cold War.
LakerFan
6 January 2012 07:16PM
Obama has no wish to conjure the spectre of a new cold war but is determined to beat back any Chinese bid for hegemony
Forget it. Unequipped to do anything of the sort.
As far back as Pharaoh Amenhotep III, it was recognized that to confront threatening foreign empires, one must boost the basic strengths of one's own empire. The US needed to enrich its internal strengths and decided not to some time ago.
The US has outsourced all the strength of its empire to China (its workforce and industry). The Chinese already have "all the marbles" and have already won any sort of imaginary "Cold War."
The problem with the US is that it decided, back in the late 1980s to pursue a fascist government, and as we know, fascists always lose. Amenhotep III, through egalitarian social and canny economic policies, not only kept the powerful empires of Assyria, Mittani, and Babylon at bay, but grew his empire into its greatest extent.
Oh, by the way, all this was accomplished without ONE war. The kings of the Near East were even referring to one another as "brother." Mental capacity in leadership seems to have dropped quite a bit during the Dark Ages.
We REALLY need to re-think WHO we allow to be our "leaders" (if in fact we even need leaders).
RefUndEd
6 January 2012 07:20PM
Bet the millions of homeless, hungry, poor with no access to health care US citizens out there feel mighty proud that their president is making sure America stands up to them pesky Chinese.
Yes siree, ol' Obama's a heck of a guy!!
DisaffectedYouth
6 January 2012 07:21PM
It is somewhat amusing and quite depressing to me that many on the European left seem to revel in America's decline and China's rise.
I mean, as bad as the United States may be in your eyes, can't you be honest enough to admit that it is better to have a secular, liberal, democratic, and allied nation at the world's helm than to have an authoritarian, illiberal, state that acts contrary to European interests and holds a historical grudge against Europe?
If your really do want whats best for your country and the world I find it hard to believe you would view Chinese hegemony as a good thing.
moonlightninja
6 January 2012 07:28PM
Interesting article, thank you.
China obviously takes the question of military prowess very seriously and intends to use it to acquire more and more influence. Alas the outcome of this is unlikely to be pretty. Many of those who have long complained about American behaviour are in for a rude awakening. The Chinese, a people completely cut off from their ancient culture but still often burning with resentment against the west will take what they want and when they want it.
Here we might get caught up arguing whether Diane Abbot was tweeting racialist comments or whether we could have a bald prime minister. The Chinese would never waste their time on such nonsense. They study history, maths, engineering. They haven't forgotten the Opium Wars while we have an ever increasing number of illiterate children who aren't even English who have no idea about history. The future will see a huge increase in Chinese power and there is a possibility they'll use it against us.
Their record on civil liberties, freedom of speech, worker rights, democracy hell even their desire to skin animals alive to save a few pence while selling fur to stupid western women - it all illustrates a ruthless streak that people in the west will be genuinely shocked to find.
For the record I think it's a great pity. The west has done many bad things but often contains within its collective psychology self-correcting mechanisms. The west did eventually stop slavery, spread the ideas of democracy and civil liberties as well as founding international law. On an individual level note how much westerners, particularly in the USA, give to charity. Those kind of attitudes are about to be swept into the dustbin of history. It's very sad.
brianboru1014
6 January 2012 07:29PM
Simon
Lets get real here shall we.
Obama takes his orders from the white military men with Irish names and he has since day one.
China will run the show here in Asia. People now realize finally in the 21st century that this is China's neighborhood. The USA is thousands of miles away.
so you tell us that
Dempsey knows China's defence spending is growing each year.
You must also know that it is still 20% of US military spending but you have not mentioned that.
osekar
6 January 2012 07:35PM
hence the sudden interest of westrn powers of the plight of the Burmese people
CelticTyke
6 January 2012 07:38PM
Response to DisaffectedYouth, 6 January 2012 07:21PM
Your description of America seems to ignore the fact that the Republican Party exists.
Garvagh
6 January 2012 07:45PM
China has gigantic internal challenges ahead, in coming decades. China rightly criticises idiotic levels of "defence" spending by the US that weakens the dollar. China needs to reduce its huge population by scores of millions of people. Not an easy programme to pursue.
Garvagh
6 January 2012 07:47PM
Response to brianboru1014, 6 January 2012 07:29PM
A united Korea, with Japan, will possess huge economic power. China likely will do best to encourage unification of Korea coupled with withdrawal of US troops from that country.
mickyfong
6 January 2012 07:48PM
they can both kiss my ass! Tibet rocks x o x o
DisaffectedYouth
6 January 2012 07:49PM
Response to CelticTyke, 6 January 2012 07:38PM
If you honestly think the Republican party, constrained by the US constitution, a somewhat capable media, an opposition party, and regular elections is a greater threat than a one party state that routinely violates its own constitution, jails oppositions figures, censors its media, and is never held accountable to its people, then I don't know what to say.
GB4EVER
6 January 2012 07:55PM
GB can not afford getting dragged into yet another power struggle between large powers. It was bad enough during the cold war.
We must focus on education and economy. Perhaps a neutral stance might be in our greater interest than spending billions on overseas wars and stockpiling nuclear weapons that we cannot use against any country
jonappleseed
6 January 2012 07:58PM
I'm still a china sceptic.
i see three huge problems for them going forward:
1) themselves...their autocratic government.
2) their pacific neighbors aren't too keen on seeing them become a military hegemon and will likely ally against them to a greater or lesser extent.
3) Us...the US.
despite obama's best efforts, we aren't going anywhere anytime soon.
VictorPurinton
6 January 2012 07:58PM
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
LakerFan
6 January 2012 08:01PM
Here's what Obama should be doing:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/06/ian-jack-germany-manufactures-success
to maintain empire.
VictorPurinton
6 January 2012 08:03PM
Response to DisaffectedYouth, 6 January 2012 07:49PM
You're assuming that people really think about what they write here. Remember, comment is free. And you get what you pay for. Complete thoughtlessness. Do you really think CelticTyke cares about the people of China? Do you really think CelticTyke has ever thought about what it must be like living in a totalitarian state? I don't.
Louielounge
6 January 2012 08:04PM
Think of it this way.
You are the first Black president of the United States. The Cold War ended a generation ago, but the military budget of the US hasn't changed, and in fact, has gotten bigger.
What do you do? Your predecessor made matters worse by starting two wars, only one of which you agreed with, and the other one your predecessor ended anyway. You just gave backup to a NATO operation in North Africa, even though the rest of the region is going to hell quickly (Egypt, Syria, Bahrain, Iraq, Iran, and so on and so on).
What do you do? You have Timothy Geithner call up China and say, "Hey, fellas. Here's what we're gonna do. We're going to become completely economically dependent on each other, and create a military rivalry, so the US has somewhere to put its bloated military budget -- bigger than the next 10 biggest national militaries combined, we hear all the time on the tele -- intellectually, strategically, overarchingly. And we're going to let the Middle East go to hell. Except, if Iran starts something in the Hormuz, the UK will act tough and lead the way."
That's what you do.
LakerFan
6 January 2012 08:06PM
IMO, China's leaders are as psychopathic, inept, and incompetent as the US's leaders. Not so much a Cold War as a Pissing Contest for Toddlers With Brains Full of Piss.
LakerFan
6 January 2012 08:12PM
Response to Louielounge, 6 January 2012 08:04PM
Yes.
Orwell's 1984 novel-within-a-novel's chapter on War is Peace might be apropos, if the "leaders" were indeed smart enough to understand it.
giants
6 January 2012 08:14PM
China has already won the economic war. They have all the advantages. Low paid workers who have no rights. The are cowed and quiesent. The combination of totalitarianism and unfettered capitalism is the perfect situation as those of us on the Left have always argued. Those who hate the Trades Unions and post here would love to see that situation in the UK We are seeing democracy as we have known it come under threat Most governments in the Asia Pacific area are "managed democracies". I fear that will become the model for the rest of us.. The West is destroying it's economies by pursuing Washington Consensus policies.The USA is losing influence where it was previously unassailable especially in Latin America where most countries are getting out from under. Internally the USA has incredible problems with massive poverty The American Taliban,I fear may try to drag us all into war in order to rescue capitalism. The latest moves may just be the start of that process.
Mauryan
6 January 2012 08:16PM
What the US is facing is its own creation. In order to counter the Soviet Union, it went by the "my-enemy's enemy is my friend" approach and pumped money and business opportunities into China. The Chinese were smart enough to realize that in order to gain power in this world, just muscle power is not enough. So they took to capitalism, while sticking to communism to hold on to power.
In order to avenge the defeat in Vietnam, the US resorted to fueling Islamic radicalism in South Asia.
In retrospect, the USSR was a convenient enemy. Parity was achieved between the US and USSR. Both stopped with huffing and puffing. In the process of destroying the USSR, the US has destroyed itself. Now it faces two monsters - China and Islamic radicalism and its economy has taken a beating.
The US should do what Canada does - mind its own business and have enough security set up within its borders to protect its citizens. The rest of the world can take care of itself.
__________________
What do you think ?
Các anh chị nghĩ thế nào, có ý kiến phê bình gì qua bài viết "China syndrome dictates Barack Obama's Asia-Pacific strategy" của Simon Tisdall và 25 Ý kiến Phê bình từ "295 Comments" của đọc giả ?
Chân thành cám ơn Quý Anh Chị ghé thăm "conbenho Nguyễn Hoài Trang Blog"
Xin được lắng nghe ý kiến chia sẻ của Quý Anh Chị trực tiếp tại Diễn Đàn Paltalk: 1Latdo Tapdoan Vietgian CSVN Phanquoc Bannuoc .
Kính chúc Sức Khỏe Quý Anh Chị .
conbenho
Tiểu Muội quantu
Nguyễn Hoài Trang
09012012
___________
CSVN là TỘI ÁC
Bao che, dung dưỡng TỘI ÁC là đồng lõa với TỘI ÁC
No comments:
Post a Comment