China’s Trilemma

[tranquilium]

Good information, thank you. I'm hear to learn, and all of you are excellent teachers.

Indeed, I understand other historical grievances, but the sheer hatred for the US confuses me.

I highly doubt it is hatred. US and China are long time competitor sitting on the different side of political arena and we have conflict of interests, but none of it is hatred worthy material. However, it is just like a boxing match, just because you don't hate your opponent, it doesn't mean you won't try your hardest to beat the living daylight out of your opponent and the other guy would sure as hell trying to do the same.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

Do you know why Korean and Japanese words also have Chinese characters? That should explain who copied who.



no hatred, Chinese doesn't hate America, so much as you are in our way. Like if I was competing with someone, I don't hate them, but I'm not their best friend either.

Certainly, China has had a tremendous cultural influence on its Asian neighbors over the centuries, but what does this have to do with economic development? My point in providing those links is to show that the model of captive banks providing sub-market rate financing to favored industries is not a new model, and thus not unique to China.

In what way is America in China's way? We supported China's replacement of Taiwan on the UN Security Council, opened full relations under Nixon in the 1970s, facilitated China's entry into the World Trade Organization, etc. Other than looking unfavorably on military sales to China (which, by the way, the US does not prevent Europe from doing), and a different choice of allies, I don't see how the US has been anything other than accommodating. Please explain what you mean.

I highly doubt it is hatred. US and China are long time competitor sitting on the different side of political arena and we have conflict of interests, but none of it is hatred worthy material. However, it is just like a boxing match, just because you don't hate your opponent, it doesn't mean you won't try your hardest to beat the living daylight out of your opponent and the other guy would sure as hell trying to do the same.

Sure, competition is great. But several Chinese members here have referred to the US as a cancer, and talk about pushing the US out of Asia ("Asia for Asians," etc.), which goes well beyond competition. That's a level of vitriol that one reserves for an enemy, not a competitor. Since the US has never gone to war with China, had a relatively benign relationship with it during the colonial years, and hasn't stood in the way of its economic development, it's unclear why certain Chinese should have such hostile feelings towards us. Europe, Japan, Russia, I understand. The US, I don't understand.

 

[tranquilium]

Sure, competition is great. But several Chinese members here have referred to the US as a cancer, and talk about pushing the US out of Asia ("Asia for Asians," etc.), which goes well beyond competition. That's a level of vitriol that one reserves for an enemy, not a competitor. Since the US has never gone to war with China, had a relatively benign relationship with it during the colonial years, and hasn't stood in the way of its economic development, it's unclear why certain Chinese should have such hostile feelings towards us. Europe, Japan, Russia, I understand. The US, I don't understand.

I personally never called US cancer, but pushing US out of Asia is a legitimate national interest. For example, China and South Korea has wanted to create a free trading zone with Japan for the longest time, but as long as Japan remains a semi-economic colony of US, this will not happen. Not to mention a number of other issues like South China sea conflict, Taiwan. And these are on top of CIA's usual antics in other countries.

 

[Okemos]

Certainly, China has had a tremendous cultural influence on its Asian neighbors over the centuries, but what does this have to do with economic development? My point in providing those links is to show that the model of captive banks providing sub-market rate financing to favored industries is not a new model, and thus not unique to China.

In what way is America in China's way? We supported China's replacement of Taiwan on the UN Security Council, opened full relations under Nixon in the 1970s, facilitated China's entry into the World Trade Organization, etc. Other than looking unfavorably on military sales to China (which, by the way, the US does not prevent Europe from doing), and a different choice of allies, I don't see how the US has been anything other than accommodating. Please explain what you mean.

Sure, competition is great. But several Chinese members here have referred to the US as a cancer, and talk about pushing the US out of Asia ("Asia for Asians," etc.), which goes well beyond competition. That's a level of vitriol that one reserves for an enemy, not a competitor. Since the US has never gone to war with China, had a relatively benign relationship with it during the colonial years, and hasn't stood in the way of its economic development, it's unclear why certain Chinese should have such hostile feelings towards us. Europe, Japan, Russia, I understand. The US, I don't understand.

Actually, judging from Internet like Sino Weibo, China is severely polarized with regard to the U.S. Some of them lick the U.S. to the obnoxious level while others blame everything on the U.S. and will find the U.S. conspiracy in every damn international event. I don't see outright hatred though. But the above two attitudes are both sickening to my taste and I hope the Chinese populace can mature up and treat China and the U.S. as two normal countries.

With regard to government regulation, it's kind of complicated. You cannot really compare wireless to electricity or even to wireline. I work in utility regulation. The FCC has been shifting back and forth depending on who is the chairman, lol.

 

[tranquilium]

Actually, judging from Internet like Sino Weibo, China is severely polarized with regard to the U.S. Some of them lick the U.S. to the obnoxious level while others blame everything on the U.S. and will find the U.S. conspiracy in every damn international event. I don't see outright hatred though. But the above two attitudes are both sickening to my taste and I hope the Chinese populace can mature up and treat China and the U.S. as two normal countries.

With regard to government regulation, it's kind of complicated. You cannot really compare wireless to electricity or even to wireline. I work in utility regulation. The FCC has been shifting back and forth depending on who is the chairman, lol.

Sina Weibo is essentially the Chinese equivalent of CNN commentary section. You find occasional gems there, but the overall stupidity level is enough to give you brain cancer.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

It's not hatred. I don't hate America or Americans, I don't hate Japan or Japanese.

What I do is I recognize them as strategic rivals, and I recognize that their governments are actively trying to contain us. China becoming more powerful is not in the interests of America or Japan, thus the reason why we are surrounded by American military bases in every direction.

Sure, competition is great. But several Chinese members here have referred to the US as a cancer, and talk about pushing the US out of Asia ("Asia for Asians," etc.), which goes well beyond competition. That's a level of vitriol that one reserves for an enemy, not a competitor. Since the US has never gone to war with China, had a relatively benign relationship with it during the colonial years, and hasn't stood in the way of its economic development, it's unclear why certain Chinese should have such hostile feelings towards us. Europe, Japan, Russia, I understand. The US, I don't understand.

We are not in the colonial era, where an American from half way across the world should decide things on behalf of South Koreans and other Asians. Why can't Asians decide those things for themselves, what about the concept of sovereignty?

Should a Chinese citizen like myself be the one to decide things on behalf of Americans?

We may not be outright enemies at this point in time, however there is no question that America is our main strategic rival.

Look around Asia, China is surrounded by American military bases in every direction.

Now tell me, do you see Chinese military bases surrounding America, in Mexico or Canada perhaps?

America's goal is to "maintain" their global hegemony. The only thing that stands in the way of that goal are countries like China and Russia, who have the present (or future) ability to say no to American hegemony.

China in particular is recognized by America as a "potential peer competitor" (i.e. potentially within the next few decades), which would permanently erode America's position as the global hegemon, since the global hegemon cannot have a peer. Thus, the rise of China is not in the interests of America, and that is why we are facing a policy of active containment, not just military but diplomatic, and in every direction.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

I personally never called US cancer, but pushing US out of Asia is a legitimate national interest. For example, China and South Korea has wanted to create a free trading zone with Japan for the longest time, but as long as Japan remains a semi-economic colony of US, this will not happen. Not to mention a number of other issues like South China sea conflict, Taiwan. And these are on top of CIA's usual antics in other countries.

How can you push the US out of Asia? We have territory in Asia, and our mainland borders the Pacific, so we belong in Asia as much as anyone else. We fought a war alongside China as an ally against the Japanese. We fought a war on behalf of the UN against North Korea. Where we have bases in Asia, it's because we were invited to have bases there (Japan, South Korea). Where we were not welcome, we have left (the Philippines). We've been heavily involved in Asia ever since 1898, and almost none of our activities there were directed against China.

I have never heard anything about the US blocking Japan or South Korea from signing FTAs with China, can you please substantiate that?

The SCS, Taiwan, friction with Japan, I understand. But these are all indirect problems between China and the US, much like China's protection of North Korea and Iran and their nuclear programs is an indirect problem between us. We put them aside for the greater good (of economic co-prosperity, if you will). Why, then, should China try to kick us out of Asia?

 

[tranquilium]

How can you push the US out of Asia? We have territory in Asia, and our mainland borders the Pacific, so we belong in Asia as much as anyone else. We fought a war alongside China as an ally against the Japanese. We fought a war on behalf of the UN against North Korea. Where we have bases in Asia, it's because we were invited to have bases there (Japan, South Korea). Where we were not welcome, we have left (the Philippines). We've been heavily involved in Asia ever since 1898, and almost none of our activities there were directed against China.

I have never heard anything about the US blocking Japan or South Korea from signing FTAs with China, can you please substantiate that?

The SCS, Taiwan, friction with Japan, I understand. But these are all indirect problems between China and the US, much like China's protection of North Korea and Iran and their nuclear programs is an indirect problem between us. We put them aside for the greater good (of economic co-prosperity, if you will). Why, then, should China try to kick us out of Asia?

Well, let's just switch a few simple words in the argument and say history went down a different way:

"How can you push the China out of North America? We have territory in America, and our mainland borders the Pacific, so we belong in America as much as anyone else. We fought a war alongside US as an ally against the Germans. We fought a war on behalf of the UN against Mexico. Where we have bases in America, it's because we were invited to have bases there (Cuba, Mexico). Where we were not welcome, we have left (the Columbians ). We've been heavily involved in America ever since 1898, and almost none of our activities there were directed against US."

If this is the case. What would you, a US citizen think?

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

It's not hatred. I don't hate America or Americans, I don't hate Japan or Japanese.

What I do is I recognize them as strategic rivals, and I recognize that their governments are actively trying to contain us. China becoming more powerful is not in the interests of America or Japan, thus the reason why we are surrounded by American military bases in every direction.



We are not in the colonial era, where an American from half way across the world should decide things on behalf of South Koreans and other Asians. Why can't Asians decide those things for themselves, what about the concept of sovereignty?

Should a Chinese citizen like myself be the one to decide things on behalf of Americans?

We may not be outright enemies at this point in time, however there is no question that America is our main strategic rival.

Look around Asia, China is surrounded by American military bases in every direction.

Now tell me, do you see Chinese military bases surrounding America, in Mexico or Canada perhaps?

America's goal is to "maintain" their global hegemony. The only thing that stands in the way of that goal are countries like China and Russia, who have the present (or future) ability to say no to American hegemony.

China in particular is recognized by America as a "potential peer competitor" (i.e. potentially within the next few decades), which would permanently erode America's position as the global hegemon, since the global hegemon cannot have a peer. Thus, the rise of China is not in the interests of America, and that is why we are facing a policy of active containment, not just military but diplomatic, and in every direction.

I think you and I have been through this before, so I'll just reiterate my earlier points and leave it at that.

We are not colonial overlords of Japan and South Korea. On the contrary, we've been begging South Korea to step up and take command of its own army so that we can withdraw. We have been trying to reach an agreement with Japan to do the same with Okinawa, but their internal politics are such that it's been an intractable problem. The issue is not with the US, it's with our Asian partners. If we controlled them, we would make unilateral decisions. This constant harping of US control over Japan and South Korea is one of the issues that confuses me, because it's simply not true. If South Korea and Japan asked us to leave, we would. As proof, we left the Philippines when it asked.

As far as the "containment" policy, you and I both know that pre-dates the rise of China as a regional power, and was directed at the USSR. The USSR annexed Japanese islands in the north, and supported North Korean attempts to annex the South. When the USSR disintegrated, it would have been a superb opportunity to pull back American forces. Unfortunately, a certain country (cough, cough) started making its own territorial claims in the area that put it in conflict with our allies, and they thought it best for us to stay as a deterrent. That is mainly for our allies' benefit, not our own. That's one reason why after asking the US to leave in the 1990s, now the Philippines has signed agreements for American military use of Subic Bay. I can try and find you various think tank and Defense Department reports on this, but I think you'll find that most American military policymakers would prefer that our allies increase military spending and do more to protect themselves so that we can consolidate our forces and a pull-back from the front lines.

The idea that the US is trying to, or even can contain China, borders on paranoia. But at least it explains China's often hostile attitude toward us.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

Well, let's just switch a few simple words in the argument and say history went down a different way:

"How can you push the China out of North America? We have territory in America, and our mainland borders the Pacific, so we belong in America as much as anyone else. We fought a war alongside US as an ally against the Germans. We fought a war on behalf of the UN against Mexico. Where we have bases in America, it's because we were invited to have bases there (Cuba, Mexico). Where we were not welcome, we have left (the Columbians ). We've been heavily involved in America ever since 1898, and almost none of our activities there were directed against US."

If this is the case. What would you, a US citizen think?

What can I say? We've been here before, first with the British--after an abortive attempt in 1812, we lived in peace with Britain's outpost in North America (Canada). We never attempted to conquer Central or South America, despite our rocky relationship with Spain in the 19th century. Then we had the Soviet Union in Cuba and stirring up trouble in South America. They played their games, and we played ours, but the Cold War was a real conflict. We had fought alongside the USSR in WWII, and then the USSR took over Eastern Europe. It was a real possibility that the USSR would take over these other countries that it was meddling in. The USSR had an explicit policy of spreading Communism and eliminating the Western influence wherever possible.

If the US, after WWII, had taken over Western Europe, or its allies in South America, you would have a point. But we proved that we were only going to get involved if the USSR were involved. Cuba is still there, hostile to us, sitting off of the coast of Florida. Venezuela, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, and others in South America are hostile to us, but we don't intervene. The US doesn't infiltrate political parties in China to influence your politics, like the USSR did with us. The US doesn't embargo China like it did the USSR. So no, after reading your counter-example, I don't see us behaving the same way.

From the US perspective, the only reason why China doesn't dominate Asia in the same way that the USSR dominated the Warsaw Pact is because it can't (yet). China's proclamations of returning to its historical role as the Great Power in Asia, or wondering aloud if Okinawa really belongs to Japan, doesn't dissuade us from that view. The unilateral actions of China in the SCS don't dissuade us from that view. I'm sure you've seen in the other China threads how exultant your compatriots have been over the Chinese Navy's dominance of the SCS. The prevailing attitude has been that China will continue to take these actions, because no one will stop it. That is the bottom line--China talks about kicking the US out of Asia, but it's not because China is standing up for Asia's independence. It's because China wants to replace the US in Asia. Am I wrong?

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

I think you and I have been through this before, so I'll just reiterate my earlier points and leave it at that.

We are not colonial overlords of Japan and South Korea. On the contrary, we've been begging South Korea to step up and take command of its own army so that we can withdraw. We have been trying to reach an agreement with Japan to do the same with Okinawa, but their internal politics are such that it's been an intractable problem. The issue is not with the US, it's with our Asian partners. If we controlled them, we would make unilateral decisions. This constant harping of US control over Japan and South Korea is one of the issues that confuses me, because it's simply not true. If South Korea and Japan asked us to leave, we would. As proof, we left the Philippines when it asked.

As far as the "containment" policy, you and I both know that pre-dates the rise of China as a regional power, and was directed at the USSR. The USSR annexed Japanese islands in the north, and supported North Korean attempts to annex the South. When the USSR disintegrated, it would have been a superb opportunity to pull back American forces. Unfortunately, a certain country (cough, cough) started making its own territorial claims in the area that put it in conflict with our allies, and they thought it best for us to stay as a deterrent. That is mainly for our allies' benefit, not our own. That's one reason why after asking the US to leave in the 1990s, now the Philippines has signed agreements for American military use of Subic Bay. I can try and find you various think tank and Defense Department reports on this, but I think you'll find that most American military policymakers would prefer that our allies increase military spending and do more to protect themselves so that we can consolidate our forces and a pull-back from the front lines.

The idea that the US is trying to, or even can contain China, borders on paranoia. But at least it explains China's often hostile attitude toward us.

I must disagree with you here.

America's goal is to maintain their global hegemony, and their American-led global order.

Thus the rise of China is NOT in the interests of America.

We have the potential to become a peer competitor to America within the next few decades, which would automatically end America's global hegemony, and end the current uni-polar world order, in favor of a more multi-polar world.

Why do you think America is making the "pivot to Asia"? As you yourself said, it is to help American allies against China, continuing the same policy of "containment" that America has had since the Cold War.

America did not even tolerate Russia having any kind of foothold in Cuba, yet both China and Russia are entirely surrounded by American bases. There is no paranoia here, just reality.

Simply put, the rise of China as a peer competitor is not in America's interests. Since we have no intention of supporting the American-led uni-polar world order, we want a multi-polar world in which we will take our rightful place as one of the poles of the world, with BRICS, Russia, America and the EU as the others. Maybe the EAS too, and the African Union, and possibly the OIC.

And no one is claiming that we are doing this out of selfless interests, like all other countries, we work for our own national interests. And China has more of a say in a multi-polar world, compared to the current uni-polar world.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

I must disagree with you here.

America's goal is to maintain their global hegemony, and their American-led global order.

Thus the rise of China is NOT in the interests of America.

We have the potential to become a peer competitor to America within the next few decades, which would automatically end America's global hegemony, and end the current uni-polar world order, in favor of a more multi-polar world.

Why do you think America is making the "pivot to Asia"? As you yourself said, it is to help American allies against China, continuing the same policy of "containment" that America has had since the Cold War.

America did not even tolerate Russia having any kind of foothold in Cuba, yet both China and Russia are entirely surrounded by American bases. There is no paranoia here, just reality.

Simply put, the rise of China as a peer competitor is not in America's interests. Since we have no intention of supporting the American-led uni-polar world order, we want a multi-polar world in which we will take our rightful place as one of the poles of the world, with BRICS, Russia, America and the EU as the others. Maybe the EAS too, and the African Union, and possibly the OIC.

And no one is claiming that we are doing this out of selfless interests, like all other countries, we work for our own national interests. And China has more of a say in a multi-polar world, compared to the current uni-polar world.

Interesting points, but I wonder if you can clarify two points:
1) When do you say "China has more of a say in a multi-polar world," what does that mean, exactly? I wonder if you can provide some concrete examples of what will change for China after it accomplishes its goal of creating a multi-polar world.

2) Why do you think China's rise is not in America's interest? Let's just assume for the moment that you're right, it's not in our interest. Why do you think that is? I'm trying to get at the underlying Chinese thinking of what exactly it is you think we're trying to accomplish in Asia. Assuming you're correct and we're trying to contain China, why? To what end?

 

[Genesis]

Certainly, China has had a tremendous cultural influence on its Asian neighbors over the centuries, but what does this have to do with economic development? My point in providing those links is to show that the model of captive banks providing sub-market rate financing to favored industries is not a new model, and thus not unique to China.

In what way is America in China's way? We supported China's replacement of Taiwan on the UN Security Council, opened full relations under Nixon in the 1970s, facilitated China's entry into the World Trade Organization, etc. Other than looking unfavorably on military sales to China (which, by the way, the US does not prevent Europe from doing), and a different choice of allies, I don't see how the US has been anything other than accommodating. Please explain what you mean.

China was the first to use paper money, banks were also around the same time, forgot who first. Our economic model was the bases for the rest of East Asia, even the Japanese word for Cabinet was a word we used for a system similar to what a Cabinet is.

So politically and economically they are more or less based on Chinese principles and expanded by the Western principles.

But it's been like a day I forgot what the argument was.



America refused any arm sales not only yourselves but by European nations. Which is why no French planes in Chinese arsenal.

China going into the WTO also benefitted America, don't pretend you guys didn't make mad cash from us, don't pretend the benefit wasn't mutual.

US is placing troops all over Asia, which is to my liking, due to an easier time of eliminating them, hard to get to the shores of America otherwise, but the key point is, America knows why china has these conflict, and knows China will erode American influence in Asia and thus the world. So you guys are backing these punks up. America has a similar past you see.


Obviously we would do the same thing if in your shoes, but since the shoes is on your foot and we are barefoot, I'm going to have to try to kick your *** out of those shoes and put it on my foot.

As I said, we want the first amongst equal status, you have it, and we want it. If that's not a reason for this rivalry I don't know what is.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Interesting points, but I wonder if you can clarify two points:
1) When do you say "China has more of a say in a multi-polar world," what does that mean, exactly? I wonder if you can provide some concrete examples of what will change for China after it accomplishes its goal of creating a multi-polar world.

2) Why do you think China's rise is not in America's interest? Let's just assume for the moment that you're right, it's not in our interest. Why do you think that is? I'm trying to get at the underlying Chinese thinking of what exactly it is you think we're trying to accomplish in Asia. Assuming you're correct and we're trying to contain China, why? To what end?

America's goal is to maintain their global hegemony. Their hegemony is in all domains, in economic, military and diplomatic.

Now, let's just take one domain for example. Let's say economic.

Check the IMF voting rights. China has less voting rights in the IMF than even France! Whereas the US has more than the other main players combined. Despite China being the largest trading power in the world, and the largest creditor nation in the world, we have less say in the IMF than France, Germany, Britain, etc. And America has more than all of those combined.

Now, another topic, the US dollar. The US dollar being the world's reserve currency (and the currency in which oil is priced) gives America what many have referred to as the "exorbitant privilege":

Exorbitant privilege - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why do you think America can print so much money all the time? With zero percent interest rates, and yet they are launching how many rounds of quantitative easing?

The reason is because the USD is the world's reserve currency, by using quantitative easing (money printing) they can push inflation into the developing world, and borrow money at absurdly low rates.

Obviously, the money that is printed does not come out of thin air. It comes out of our pockets, China/Japan and everyone else who holds USD as reserves (basically everyone). By printing money, they are devaluing the dollar, and thus devaluing our reserves, it is essentially a stealth tax on us.

------------------------

One main goal that China has, is to change the world's reserve currency from the USD to a more equitable "basket of currencies". This removes America's exorbitant privilege, and makes it easier for us to compete on the global stage, and prevent our reserves being willfully devalued and stealth taxed by QE.

Does this benefit America? No, in fact it will have massive costs on America, who will find their cost of borrowing soaring, at a time when they already have such a massive borrowing problem. Along with countless other problems that come from losing the reserve status of the USD, most of which will have a negative effect on American economic competitiveness.

America gains a lot from their global hegemony, not just in economic terms (as mentioned above), but in all areas, including military and diplomatic. If China becomes a developed country in the next few decades, that will put severe pressure on the American global hegemony, and remove some of the exorbitant privileges that they receive from currently being the world hegemon/leader.

Bear in mind that we have zero designs on becoming a world hegemon ourselves, even if that were possible (it's not), I believe the era of superpowers and global hegemons is over, or will be within the next few decades. Thus, a multi-polar world is better for us, a world in which America does not have an exorbitant privilege, which comes at the expense of our own competitiveness.

Apologies for the long post, usually I am not so long-winded.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

China was the first to use paper money, banks were also around the same time, forgot who first. Our economic model was the bases for the rest of East Asia, even the Japanese word for Cabinet was a word we used for a system similar to what a Cabinet is.

So politically and economically they are more or less based on Chinese principles and expanded by the Western principles.

But it's been like a day I forgot what the argument was.



America refused any arm sales not only yourselves but by European nations. Which is why no French planes in Chinese arsenal.

China going into the WTO also benefitted America, don't pretend you guys didn't make mad cash from us, don't pretend the benefit wasn't mutual.

US is placing troops all over Asia, which is to my liking, due to an easier time of eliminating them, hard to get to the shores of America otherwise, but the key point is, America knows why china has these conflict, and knows China will erode American influence in Asia and thus the world. So you guys are backing these punks up. America has a similar past you see.


Obviously we would do the same thing if in your shoes, but since the shoes is on your foot and we are barefoot, I'm going to have to try to kick your *** out of those shoes and put it on my foot.

As I said, we want the first amongst equal status, you have it, and we want it. If that's not a reason for this rivalry I don't know what is.

If I can summarize your post, China wants to displace the US to satisfy its own ego. Got it.