What's new

Hatoyama: China's Asia Pacific influence is irreversible

TaiShang

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Apr 30, 2014
Messages
27,848
Reaction score
70
Country
China
Location
Taiwan, Province Of China
Hatoyama: China's Asia Pacific influence is irreversible
china.org.cn

China's influence is growing irreversibly in the Asia Pacific region, former Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama said in a keynote speech at the 3rd World Peace Forum (WPF) in Beijing on Saturday.

According to International Monetary Fund (IMF) statistics, China has contributed 50 percent of Asian economic growth, Chinese State Councilor Yang Jiechi said in his address to the forum.

Asia now accounts for one third of the global economy and the proportion will rise to one half by the middle of the century as the world's leading authorities have expected, he added.

Javier Solana, former EU High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy, spoke highly of Asian economic integration. But he is concerned that there is a long way to go for the region to achieve political and security integration on the same level.

Earlier, in May, President Xi Jinping proposed for Asia to build sustainable and durable security at the Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia (CICA) Summit.

Yang said Asian countries cannot have crossed the threshold of the 21st century leaving one foot behind in the old zero-sum cold war era.

Hatoyama urged Japan, China, and South Korea work together to reach a consensus on a free-trade agreement and take a leading role in building the East Asian Community. But at first, Japan's leaders must be courageous and face up to history, the former prime minister added.

Abe's cabinet has attempted to reinterpret the current Pacifist Constitution by lifting a ban on collective self-defense.

According to Article 9 of the constitution, Japan forever renounces war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as a means of settling international disputes.

But Abe's attempt will allow the country to fight with other nations under the umbrella of collective self-defense and escalate tensions in the East China Sea, said Wang Taiping, former consul general of China in Osaka.

Force only brings more force, former French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin said. He proposed a political process, cooperation and dialogue to resolve disputes.

China insists that disputes in the East China Sea and South China Sea be settled through friendly consultations and negotiations between the countries involved, with full respect to historical facts and international law, Yang said.

Former U.S. national security advisor Stephen Hadley reiterated that the United States takes no position over the sovereignty disputes of the Diaoyu Islands. But the U.S. senior official alleged that the U.S. military presence in the Asia-Pacific region helps to cultivate a peaceful environment for China's economy.

He suggested China and Japan suspend the disputes and in future let the next generation of the two countries solve the issue if "we don't have enough wisdom" to find a solution now, quoting former Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai and Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping.

Hatoyama admitted in an interview at the WPF Sunday that the two countries had reached consensus on suspending the disputes when diplomatic relations were normalized in 1972. He urged Japan's politicians to face up to the facts of the past.

China is determined to defend its national sovereignty and territorial integrity and will not bargain on its core interests, Yang said.

According to the state councilor, China is expecting US$1 trillion in imports, US$500 billion in overseas direct investment and 500 million outbound tourists in the next five years.

China hopes for regional stability and opposes any act that undermines good-neighborliness and mutual trust, Yang said.
 
China absolutely has the opportunity to exert massive influence over the whole region for decades or longer. Once the neo-nationalists with a chip on their shoulder are marginalized, the brilliant strategist Chinese that the world has come to expect will return to take advantage of their economic superiority.

The way to curtail US influence in your backyard is to partner or befriend your neighbors, and show them why China is the path to their prosperous future, not America. It would be so easy to push the US out of the SCS, if that is what the real goal is, that it baffles me why it isn't being done.

But when they feel militarily threatened, such as now, they will grow even closer to a force that their neighbor respects, which right now is the USA.
 
China absolutely has the opportunity to exert massive influence over the whole region for decades or longer. Once the neo-nationalists with a chip on their shoulder are marginalized, the brilliant strategist Chinese that the world has come to expect will return to take advantage of their economic superiority.

China's "neo-nationalists" have helped to engineer the long peace that Asia has been enjoying since the war. In the meantime, the US patriots have waged how many wars? So much for your desired and respected nation, right?

It is simply bandwagoning, and there is nothing special about that. Vietnam hopes to bandwagon with Japan as much as it wants with the US.

For sure, there is no stary-Asians looking up to the benign US more than they seek solace to Japan's warm embrace or others'.

The brilliant stragesists have formulated the ADIZ and SCS oil rig policy, for which China has gained much, lost nothing.
 
China's "neo-nationalists" have helped to engineer the long peace that Asia has been enjoying since the war. In the meantime, the US patriots have waged how many wars? So much for your desired and respected nation, right?

It is simply bandwagoning, and there is nothing special about that. Vietnam hopes to bandwagon with Japan as much as it wants with the US.

For sure, there is no stary-Asians looking up to the benign US more than they seek solace to Japan's warm embrace or others'.

The brilliant stragesists have formulated the ADIZ and SCS oil rig policy, for which China has gained much, lost nothing.

I am not familiar with band-wagoning being used in that context. However, ignoring your off-topic logical fallacies directed at my profile, I have to say that you are not seeing the extent of counter-productive reactions to recent Chinese saber-rattling.

I don't want US money or lives being used in the region (outside of Seoul) anymore than you do. But the best way to make sure that more US alliances are made, current alliances are strengthened, and loads of new US made weapons proliferate the area, is to intimidate your neighbors.
 
I don't want US money or lives being used in the region (outside of Seoul) anymore than you do. But the best way to make sure that more US alliances are made, current alliances are strengthened, and loads of new US made weapons proliferate the area, is to intimidate your neighbors.

I will ignore your nonsensical slur in the first paragraph to which I am helpless to provide a counter argument.

As for the above paragraph, good for you, I would say. I wish your government would be as reasonable. But, as it seems, your government is taking the alternative route. It might as well be that China wants to pull the US more deeply into the region -- after all, how much more invested the US can be than it already is way before the Chinese ADIZ and oil rig?

In fact it is good to see the US getting more and more stretched as China capitalzies on its legitimate claims which seem from your vantage point as "intimitading others". Very well. I think China will keep intimidating to the point that no body claims XiSha as their own just as no body claims Hawai as their own.

China is not in a position to be intimidated by loads of more US weapons and personel and a noodle-bowl of security agreements. Nonetheless, other than its territorial sovereignty, I also do not want China to be engaged in wars of control or domination. That job is best done by the US.
 
I will ignore your nonsensical slur in the first paragraph to which I am helpless to provide a counter argument.

As for the above paragraph, good for you, I would say. I wish your government would be as reasonable. But, as it seems, your government is taking the alternative route. It might as well be that China wants to pull the US more deeply into the region -- after all, how much more invested the US can be than it already is way before the Chinese ADIZ and oil rig?

In fact it is good to see the US getting more and more stretched as China capitalzies on its legitimate claims which seem from your vantage point as "intimitading others". Very well. I think China will keep intimidating to the point that no body claims XiSha as their own just as no body claims Hawai as their own.

China is not in a position to be intimidated by loads of more US weapons and personel and a noodle-bowl of security agreements. Nonetheless, other than its territorial sovereignty, I also do not want China to be engaged in wars of control or domination. That job is best done by the US.

I think China will find that it is more advantageous along economic, political, and quality of life fronts to dominate via influence garnered by friendship and capital, rather than bayonet. While you consider past US military involvement in foreign conflicts as a liability for my opinion, I consider it an asset, since I have experienced what it does first hand.

As to your comment about a slur, I just re-read everything in my post to make sure I did not mistakenly use one, but I apologize if there is a dual-meaning in anything I wrote, and will edit it if you point it out.
 
These caricature says all.
b48f8c5494eef01f8270f160e2fe9925bc317d2b.jpg
d109b3de9c82d158070ab014820a19d8bd3e428f.jpg

251f95cad1c8a786144da3ab6509c93d70cf5034.jpg

a9ec8a13632762d0b8b44d1aa2ec08fa503dc689.jpg
 
I think China will find that it is more advantageous along economic, political, and quality of life fronts to dominate via influence garnered by friendship and capital, rather than bayonet. While you consider past US military involvement in foreign conflicts as a liability for my opinion, I consider it an asset, since I have experienced what it does first hand.

The US experience does indeed teach an important lesson. But most of the lesson that has been historically learned from the US experience is already inherent in China's foreign policy conceptualization. China will unlikely to venture beyond what its sovereign rights dictate. In this case, I do not expect China to form military alliances, build trade blocs, or interfere in others' internal affairs.

But again, it is not about this or that faction, China's claims in SCS, ECS and Taiwan are explicity stated in the Constitution, which predates anyone that is today helming China's foreign policy. In this case, I see China to be similar to the US. The US Constitution provides a national-psyche, and that becomes, more or less, the guiding sign for action. Similarly, Chinese foreign policy and national sentiment is a sense a by-product of its own founding values.

No amount of alliance, bandwagoning, bloc-making, or armament will stop China from eventually completing national unification. It is 'my way or highway' situation, really. Simply there is no going back on this.


That's epic. Thank you for the share!
 
Yep the lines denotes verbal action (barking), comic drawn by Taiwanese. :D

It's unclear to me why the dogs are hostile to the innocent, helpless panda. Is there a page that shows the panda invading the dogs' territories, or dominating them and demanding tribute for over 1,000 years? I speculated that there might be a page that shows Uncle Sam dropping a nuclear bomb on the dog that's biting the panda, but it's clear from the cartoon that Uncle Sam has always been, and always will be, hostile to the panda. Poor panda.
 

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom