Jump to content

34 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Filed: Timeline
Posted

By Robert E. Kelly
February 10, 2014

Until recently, Asia was arguably “multipolar”—there was no one state large enough to dominate and many roughly equal states competed for influence. China’s dramatic rise has unbalanced that rough equity.

...

China’s rapid growth unnerves many states on its perimeter, from India, east to Vietnam, Indonesia and Australia, north to Taiwan, Japan, and Russia. Were these states to align, they might contain China in the same way the Japan, China, and NATO all worked to contain the U.S.S.R.

...

Since 2009 however, China has increasingly resorted to bullying and threats ... In the South China Sea it has pushed a very expansive definition of its maritime zone of control, and it recently faced down the Philippines in a dispute over the Scarborough Shoal in that sea ... A hard line seems to be working in the South China Sea. But China’s northeast Asian neighbors are far stronger and more capable than its southeast Asian ones. Most observers expect Japan, South Korea and the U.S. to push back, as indeed they have.

...

All this then sets up a bipolar contest between China and Japan, in the context of China’s rapid rise toward regional dominance.

...

To be fair, it is not clear yet if indeed China seeks regional hegemony. But there is a growing consensus among American and Japanese analysts that this is indeed the case. By Chinese hegemony in Asia we broadly mean something akin to the United States’ position in Latin America. We do not mean actual conquest. Almost no one believes China intends to annex even its weakest neighbors like Cambodia or North Korea. Rather, analysts expect a zone of super-ordinate influence over neighbors.

For example, in 1823, U.S. president James Monroe proclaimed the Monroe Doctrine, which warned all non-American powers to stay out of the Western Hemisphere on pain of U.S. retaliation. This has worked reasonably well for almost 200 years. The U.S. has variously used force, aid, covert CIA assistance, trade, and so on to eject foreign powers from what Washington (condescendingly) came to call “America’s backyard.” Today, of course, such language seems disturbingly neocolonial, but many assume that the fundamental illiberalism of such spheres of influence do not worry non-democracies like China. A Sinic Monroe Doctrine would likely include some mix of the following:

- the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Japan and Korea,

- U.S. naval retrenchment from east Asia, perhaps as far back as Hawaii,

- a division of the Pacific into east/U.S. and west/China zones with a Chinese blue-water navy operating beyond the so-called second island chain running from Japan southeast to New Guinea,

- an RMB currency bloc in southeast Asia and possibly Korea,

- a regional trading zone,

- foreign policies from China’s neighbors broadly in sync with its own.

This is not going to happen soon of course. This is a project for the next several decades, just as U.S. power over Latin America came slowly through the nineteenth century. But such goals would broadly fit with what we have seen in the behavior of previous hegemons, including Imperial Japan and China, Rome, the British Empire, the U.S. in Latin America, and various German plans for Eastern Europe in the first half of the twentieth century. The era of U.S. preponderance in Asia is coming to an end.

Robert E. Kelly (@Robert_E_Kelly) is an associate professor of international relations in the Department of Political Science and Diplomacy at Pusan National University. More of his work may be found at his website, AsianSecurityBlog.wordpress.com.

http://thediplomat.com/2014/02/what-would-chinese-hegemony-look-like/

Filed: Country: England
Timeline
Posted

Let's say they lost a few lightly populated areas outside the core. Would it matter?

If anything happens, it won't just be a few outlying areas. If societal, or financial imbalance causes significant problems, I can envisage China having significant cohesion difficulties.

A few low-population areas would make little difference to current policy, save to try bullying them back into the fold. A major dissociative fracture would alter the international dynamic forever, and may bring us one step closer to a multinational-dominated world political arena.

Don't interrupt me when I'm talking to myself

2011-11-15.garfield.png

Posted

It would look bad.

To us? Yes. But to China? I think not so much, nor that they would care. They now own $1.3 trillion of our debt. Japan has $1.1 trillion. Methinks those numbers can become bargaining chips in the near future.
Posted

To us? Yes. But to China? I think not so much, nor that they would care. They now own $1.3 trillion of our debt. Japan has $1.1 trillion. Methinks those numbers can become bargaining chips in the near future.

That amount is a small amount of our total debt, which is mostly owed to ourselves. So, not much a bargaining chip.

China in control, with current chinese quality, lack of concern for human life, poor problem-solving, would be horrible. A super-polluted world with stolen fake handbags and dead kids from eating milk mixed with plastic powder, and slave labor. Please, god, no.

AOS for my husband
8/17/10: INTERVIEW DAY (day 123) APPROVED!!

ROC:
5/23/12: Sent out package
2/06/13: APPROVED!

Filed: AOS (apr) Country: Canada
Timeline
Posted

That amount is a small amount of our total debt, which is mostly owed to ourselves. So, not much a bargaining chip.

+1 for that.

No joke, the over exaggeration of that is quite common and quite annoying.

Posted

That amount is a small amount of our total debt, which is mostly owed to ourselves. So, not much a bargaining chip.

China in control, with current chinese quality, lack of concern for human life, poor problem-solving, would be horrible. A super-polluted world with stolen fake handbags and dead kids from eating milk mixed with plastic powder, and slave labor. Please, god, no.

Small today. Only about 8%. Let's see if it remains small.

What stolen handbags? They make them there...

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
- Back to Top -

Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×
×
  • Create New...