Lately there was a series of good discussions about power balance in Asia. Some thinks China will dominate the Pacific and US influence will diminish in time. Some thinks China will have no chance on such a conflict. Some thinks -including myself- thinks there will be no major power conflicts in Pacific ongoing years. Altough I'm still optimistic about the peaceful rise of China, I want to compile some of the potential conflicts that might challenge the durability of China-US relations. I also do want to point out these points' current status in Pax-Americana and China's wishes for revision. The alignment of the topics will be with respect to importance to China.
1-) Problems in Hong Kong : It's definitely a red line for China. In current status, both in terms of de facto and de jure HK is an integral part of China. China clearly states "Don't mess with HK" to every 3rd party nation. However Western Powers definitely audit the current "One country, two systems" status quo. USA is so sensitive about HK democracy and the pro-democracy protests definitely found great attention in the Western Media / people. After all they say they were "promised" by China that the democratic environment in HK will be protected during the hand over process. China slams this "HK's freedom is at risk" thesis with the elections. Universal Suffrage or not HK is making elections. In British rule there were elections but this was just like electing a mayor. The elections in British rule was definitely not carrying a political nature. As I've said before since both in terms of de facto and de jure current status quo "hands over" HK to China. That's why China needs no revision to change that.
2-) Problems with Taiwan : It's another red line (altough less sensitive than HK) for China. In current status, Taiwan is de jure belong to China, but de facto independant. This is the issue where international rules are "bended". Altough US accepts "One China Policy" and sees Taiwan as an integral part of China, it sells weapons to them. Well if we look at this from a Weberian point of view -and this view lies the foundation of states- there is a monopoly on violance. Only states has the right to project legitimate power. If an organization is not recognized as a state, selling them weapons should not be an option. Because that means that US does not recognize the monopoly of violance, which leads us to questions like does the cartel in Mexico can also buy planes from Lockheed Martin? It's an extremely exaggerated example but international status of Taiwan is not an actual state, so principles my friends, principles formed our civilizations. In current status quo, situation of Taiwan should definitely be revised, however first US should revise it's own policies about Taiwan. It's an elephant in the room and this must be solved. Either US should recognize Taiwan as an independant state and denounce One China Policy that it has signed, if it's so eager to sell them weapons or it should definitely stop selling weapons.
3-) Problems with Japan : It's a major topic for China. Clearly China wants a pacifist Japan. Pacifist Japan is actually the status quo of post-WW2 era. However lately US is changing it's own status quo. Japan is a solid country in terms of economy, technology and political power. It has the power to counter balance China for a certain period of time. However, this is like trying to counter balance Israel with Germany. I mean this seems a little unfair to me. There is a deep psychological problem between Japanese and Chinese people and an agressive and assertive Japan definitely won't help to normalize this psychology. I still don't believe that neither China nor Japan wants a war, but this deep psychological hatret could create an "accidental" war. A boat from one side decides to shoot at the boat from the other side. The other side retaliates. Both governments can not control their militaries in such confrontation then US involves than here we go, we have nuclear war. US should protect it's own post-WW2 status quo about the pacifist Japan. If China needs counter balancing there is no 3rd party, proxy nation needed. US is the strongest military in Pacific today. It should counter balance China itself if it's needed. Usage of Japan might produce "unexpected" outcomes. I mean US can also use India if it wants a proxy so bad.
4-) Problems in South China Sea : It's a gentle one. Current status quo does not give this one to China neither in terms of de facto or de jure. 9 dashed line clearly claims some islands that are already been claimed. And what is more problematic is one of the stakeholders, Philippines, has a defence agreement with US. Well if China wants to realize the 9 dashed line it should win a couple of wars -the final one should be against US- and if some left alive -in the most populated area of the planet Earth I might add- than that person can claim the entire area. Well on this one I will critisize US again. US should put some guidelines, some perspective or initiative about this problem. I mean US policy on South China Sea was just like "Calm Down You Two OK?" tune. However there were no real solutions. Give China what it deserves and let the smaller stakeholders believe that they got something important. I mean US can always convince them like "If it wasn't for me, you could've lost them all.". So US needs to "distribute" South China Sea to the current stakeholders.
I know there are more problems like, problems with India. But I believe this Aksai Chin issue will be solved peacefully and there will be no major problems between India and China.
1-) Problems in Hong Kong : It's definitely a red line for China. In current status, both in terms of de facto and de jure HK is an integral part of China. China clearly states "Don't mess with HK" to every 3rd party nation. However Western Powers definitely audit the current "One country, two systems" status quo. USA is so sensitive about HK democracy and the pro-democracy protests definitely found great attention in the Western Media / people. After all they say they were "promised" by China that the democratic environment in HK will be protected during the hand over process. China slams this "HK's freedom is at risk" thesis with the elections. Universal Suffrage or not HK is making elections. In British rule there were elections but this was just like electing a mayor. The elections in British rule was definitely not carrying a political nature. As I've said before since both in terms of de facto and de jure current status quo "hands over" HK to China. That's why China needs no revision to change that.
2-) Problems with Taiwan : It's another red line (altough less sensitive than HK) for China. In current status, Taiwan is de jure belong to China, but de facto independant. This is the issue where international rules are "bended". Altough US accepts "One China Policy" and sees Taiwan as an integral part of China, it sells weapons to them. Well if we look at this from a Weberian point of view -and this view lies the foundation of states- there is a monopoly on violance. Only states has the right to project legitimate power. If an organization is not recognized as a state, selling them weapons should not be an option. Because that means that US does not recognize the monopoly of violance, which leads us to questions like does the cartel in Mexico can also buy planes from Lockheed Martin? It's an extremely exaggerated example but international status of Taiwan is not an actual state, so principles my friends, principles formed our civilizations. In current status quo, situation of Taiwan should definitely be revised, however first US should revise it's own policies about Taiwan. It's an elephant in the room and this must be solved. Either US should recognize Taiwan as an independant state and denounce One China Policy that it has signed, if it's so eager to sell them weapons or it should definitely stop selling weapons.
3-) Problems with Japan : It's a major topic for China. Clearly China wants a pacifist Japan. Pacifist Japan is actually the status quo of post-WW2 era. However lately US is changing it's own status quo. Japan is a solid country in terms of economy, technology and political power. It has the power to counter balance China for a certain period of time. However, this is like trying to counter balance Israel with Germany. I mean this seems a little unfair to me. There is a deep psychological problem between Japanese and Chinese people and an agressive and assertive Japan definitely won't help to normalize this psychology. I still don't believe that neither China nor Japan wants a war, but this deep psychological hatret could create an "accidental" war. A boat from one side decides to shoot at the boat from the other side. The other side retaliates. Both governments can not control their militaries in such confrontation then US involves than here we go, we have nuclear war. US should protect it's own post-WW2 status quo about the pacifist Japan. If China needs counter balancing there is no 3rd party, proxy nation needed. US is the strongest military in Pacific today. It should counter balance China itself if it's needed. Usage of Japan might produce "unexpected" outcomes. I mean US can also use India if it wants a proxy so bad.
4-) Problems in South China Sea : It's a gentle one. Current status quo does not give this one to China neither in terms of de facto or de jure. 9 dashed line clearly claims some islands that are already been claimed. And what is more problematic is one of the stakeholders, Philippines, has a defence agreement with US. Well if China wants to realize the 9 dashed line it should win a couple of wars -the final one should be against US- and if some left alive -in the most populated area of the planet Earth I might add- than that person can claim the entire area. Well on this one I will critisize US again. US should put some guidelines, some perspective or initiative about this problem. I mean US policy on South China Sea was just like "Calm Down You Two OK?" tune. However there were no real solutions. Give China what it deserves and let the smaller stakeholders believe that they got something important. I mean US can always convince them like "If it wasn't for me, you could've lost them all.". So US needs to "distribute" South China Sea to the current stakeholders.
I know there are more problems like, problems with India. But I believe this Aksai Chin issue will be solved peacefully and there will be no major problems between India and China.
