Home›Forums›General Discussion›US & China: Destined to Clash?
- This topic has 32 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 12 years ago by Sirhc Sicnarf.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 1, 2012 at 5:44 am #17504Chris ZiichModeratorQuote:…running a cost in the billions.
trillions
March 1, 2012 at 7:05 am #17679BrendanModeratorThere are other estimates that put the total cost at anywhere from $2-7 trillion (dating back to 1991), while other sources break it down to $3.5 billion per day since 2001. None of the above balance any net gain relative to oil trades, though this could still be considered a private interest gain aside from associated tax revenues.
March 1, 2012 at 7:05 am #17511BrendanModeratorThere are other estimates that put the total cost at anywhere from $2-7 trillion (dating back to 1991), while other sources break it down to $3.5 billion per day since 2001. None of the above balance any net gain relative to oil trades, though this could still be considered a private interest gain aside from associated tax revenues.
March 1, 2012 at 9:31 am #17683Mike’s PizzaParticipantQuote:America and China are already constantly clashing, they just do it through proxies as in the Cold War. Iran is an abstract example…Brendan, I think you and I are saying the same thing here. My point is that China consistently uses it’s Security Council power to veto United Nations sanctions against Iran, and continues to do business with Iranian companies after western powers have stopped. As you said, there is a lot of jockeying for power in the region and China pushes and prods from the other side to see what the US reaction will be. An subtle but effective affront to US hegemony.
However, according to CNN and Wikileaks, it seems that China has actually been instrumental in trying to broker a peaceful arrangement between the US and Iran, although the whole world seems to believe it’s China that is supplying them with the necessary equipment and technology to pursue their nuclear program.
And just for the record, I’m really not making a judgement on which side is right here, I’m just saying as opposed to direct military conflict, it’s a pretty good example of how the two superpowers jockey with each other on the international stage.
March 1, 2012 at 9:31 am #17516Mike’s PizzaParticipantQuote:America and China are already constantly clashing, they just do it through proxies as in the Cold War. Iran is an abstract example…Brendan, I think you and I are saying the same thing here. My point is that China consistently uses it’s Security Council power to veto United Nations sanctions against Iran, and continues to do business with Iranian companies after western powers have stopped. As you said, there is a lot of jockeying for power in the region and China pushes and prods from the other side to see what the US reaction will be. An subtle but effective affront to US hegemony.
However, according to CNN and Wikileaks, it seems that China has actually been instrumental in trying to broker a peaceful arrangement between the US and Iran, although the whole world seems to believe it’s China that is supplying them with the necessary equipment and technology to pursue their nuclear program.
And just for the record, I’m really not making a judgement on which side is right here, I’m just saying as opposed to direct military conflict, it’s a pretty good example of how the two superpowers jockey with each other on the international stage.
March 1, 2012 at 9:48 am #17684BrendanModeratorQuote:And just for the record, I’m really not making a judgement on which side is right here, I’m just saying as opposed to direct military conflict, it’s a pretty good example of how the two superpowers jockey with each other on the international stage.Ditto.
March 1, 2012 at 9:48 am #17518BrendanModeratorQuote:And just for the record, I’m really not making a judgement on which side is right here, I’m just saying as opposed to direct military conflict, it’s a pretty good example of how the two superpowers jockey with each other on the international stage.Ditto.
March 2, 2012 at 2:15 pm #17703Sirhc SicnarfParticipantHey all,
This is pretty much my first post on a forum ever, but it is a topic I’m very interested in, so here it goes!
This is obviously an issue that we, the laowai, living here in China have great mutual interest in and we could go on discussing it forever. I think the texts Charlie refers to in the original post are typical of realist writers advocating that a power struggle in world politics will eventually result in conflict and I don’t really agree.
Such a threat theory has been advocated by realists for decades. While yes there are issues and the Paracel Islands are a good example of this, I believe conflict in less likely than it was in earlier decades when the two nations were less interconnected economically. While there was a long standing threat of conflict during the late 20th century and in to the early 21st, war did not follow.
I echo the sentiments of Mike’s Pizza that the Fukuyama view of the “end of history” is very much outdated. Development to democracy is not the only way forward. China was always really going to develop in a unique way. It was very unlikely that it would just model itself on a Western system of government and expect to simply- as many liberal writers put forward in the late 80s and early 90s around the time of the student protests here- “have what we (Westerners) have”. Nonetheless, just because the systems of government are so different, this does not mean conflict is inevitable. Jerry is right when he says that, yes there could be a clash, but given the interdependent economic relationship between the two, there are so many potential losses for both sides the relative gains of conflict are minimal.
Armed conflict between the two is a possibility, but it is certainly not inevitable.
March 2, 2012 at 2:15 pm #17548Sirhc SicnarfParticipantHey all,
This is pretty much my first post on a forum ever, but it is a topic I’m very interested in, so here it goes!
This is obviously an issue that we, the laowai, living here in China have great mutual interest in and we could go on discussing it forever. I think the texts Charlie refers to in the original post are typical of realist writers advocating that a power struggle in world politics will eventually result in conflict and I don’t really agree.
Such a threat theory has been advocated by realists for decades. While yes there are issues and the Paracel Islands are a good example of this, I believe conflict in less likely than it was in earlier decades when the two nations were less interconnected economically. While there was a long standing threat of conflict during the late 20th century and in to the early 21st, war did not follow.
I echo the sentiments of Mike’s Pizza that the Fukuyama view of the “end of history” is very much outdated. Development to democracy is not the only way forward. China was always really going to develop in a unique way. It was very unlikely that it would just model itself on a Western system of government and expect to simply- as many liberal writers put forward in the late 80s and early 90s around the time of the student protests here- “have what we (Westerners) have”. Nonetheless, just because the systems of government are so different, this does not mean conflict is inevitable. Jerry is right when he says that, yes there could be a clash, but given the interdependent economic relationship between the two, there are so many potential losses for both sides the relative gains of conflict are minimal.
Armed conflict between the two is a possibility, but it is certainly not inevitable.
March 2, 2012 at 3:20 pm #17705CharlieKeymasterQuote:Jerry is right when he says that, yes there could be a clash, but given the interdependent economic relationship between the two, there are so many potential losses for both sides the relative gains of conflict are minimal.Right, both countries have a lot to lose by not getting along. However, this sticks in my mind from the article:
“Over the last 40 years, China has gained far more than the United States from the Sino-American strategic rapprochement.”
Since China uses the economic relationship with the US to militarize itself and embolden its allies (Iran), the threat is growing. It’s not the 40 year relationship that is cause for alarm, but the growing threat that China represents.
Quote:America and China are already constantly clashing, they just do it through proxies as in the Cold War.Great post, thanks for contributing Mike. Your pizza is awesome, also.
March 2, 2012 at 3:20 pm #17551CharlieKeymasterQuote:Jerry is right when he says that, yes there could be a clash, but given the interdependent economic relationship between the two, there are so many potential losses for both sides the relative gains of conflict are minimal.Right, both countries have a lot to lose by not getting along. However, this sticks in my mind from the article:
“Over the last 40 years, China has gained far more than the United States from the Sino-American strategic rapprochement.”
Since China uses the economic relationship with the US to militarize itself and embolden its allies (Iran), the threat is growing. It’s not the 40 year relationship that is cause for alarm, but the growing threat that China represents.
Quote:America and China are already constantly clashing, they just do it through proxies as in the Cold War.Great post, thanks for contributing Mike. Your pizza is awesome, also.
March 5, 2012 at 9:10 am #17768Mike’s PizzaParticipantMarch 5, 2012 at 10:02 am #17772Rick in ChinaParticipantOne major thing about China and building of its military – sure, it may be growing technologically..but I still think they’re WAY behind here..instead think about this: their biggest threat doesn’t come from the US or from foreign powers, it comes from domestic uprising. There are numerous situations where domestic uprisings are still a MAJOR concern for the CPC. China absolutely does need a large land-based military…not to fend off the US, US invading China via land would be ridiculous imo, it’s to squash the potential rioting that would happen if, say, a major economic disaster threatened the country’s social stability – like say a housing bubble collapse that resulted in everyone thinking they’re “on the way up” becoming suddenly bust with no way to get that cash back and starting to point fingers at..well, who can they be pointed at other than big brother.
March 6, 2012 at 3:10 am #17777March 7, 2012 at 10:08 am #17809Mike’s PizzaParticipantGotta love how the exact same statistic means completely the opposite depending on who is reporting it.
March 8, 2012 at 2:50 am #17820Ian CunninghamMemberWell, with the United States poised to a strong stance and with China also rising to the occasion, it would not be surprising to see both countries go at it. I mean, it was not looking similar some decades back but with China also coming to senses and are slowly staging their own uprising, they are bound to really wreak favor toward each other.
But I know that it could pretty much be solved with diplomatic terms.
March 9, 2012 at 7:40 pm #17843CharlieKeymasterQuote:Well, with the United States poised to a strong stance and with China also rising to the occasion, it would not be surprising to see both countries go at it. I mean, it was not looking similar some decades back but with China also coming to senses and are slowly staging their own uprising, they are bound to really wreak favor toward each other.China was never a threat to the growth of the US until the last 10 years or so. Invading and “liberating” China was on the table decades ago but the attitude among US leaders at the time was “China? Why bother?”
March 13, 2012 at 1:20 am #17862Sirhc SicnarfParticipantReally? Do you mean backing the Guomindang to take back the mainland or something else? I’ve never heard of this.
-
AuthorPosts
- The forum ‘General Discussion’ is closed to new topics and replies.