US, China Vow to Improve Cooperation

[Kiss_of_the_Dragon]

US have core interest in both TW and SCS(east sea). If u cant take back TW that much closer to China than SCS, then no hope for u to rob the international water from the whole world

Since when you viet become a spoken person of US..US this US that? you sure know US core interest

 

[Jlaw]

[

China, U.S. to boost security ties, but no breakthroughs| Reuters

We know the real story behind the headline, but we don't need to disclose in internet forum. Let the monkeys troll and have a good time.

 

[Genesis]

That's fine, but as a result of this decision, you can see why the US has been pursuing its pivot. China doesn't want what is "fair," it wants it all. Of course, the other inhabitants of Asia won't just roll over for China, and the US is exploiting that opening. I'm sure China sees some advantage in its posture (possibly for domestic political reasons), but meanwhile, the US is benefiting as well. If pushing the US out of Asia has been China's goal, it's doing the worst possible job of it.

US pursuing this pivot is not for justice, that ship has sailed. What is fair btw, how do you classify fair? Sure I said contradictory, I didn't say they are wrong. Let's not get into it, cause that's a huge discussion, if you want we can do it on another thread.


The key point I want to discuss is your perception and mostly US's perception that China is failing. China isn't failing in its policies, we are stalling.

If US leaves, we would be in worse shape, than if you stay. For now. We lack the infrastructure to take over from the US right now, we lack the political, economic clout, and even military power. Japan would benefit the most.

We are building our own regional bank and SCO, as well as many other organizations to improve political and economic power. We are fast filling the holes in our military, and we are still waiting for GDP to surpass the US around 2025 in nominal terms.


So while it looks to you like we are failing, you are not seeing what we are lacking, but it is actually more true that Americans are not seeing how fast we are improving.

Time is the great enemy to the US, but a great friend to us, the longer we stall, the better prepared we will be.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

US pursuing this pivot is not for justice, that ship has sailed. What is fair btw, how do you classify fair? Sure I said contradictory, I didn't say they are wrong. Let's not get into it, cause that's a huge discussion, if you want we can do it on another thread.


The key point I want to discuss is your perception and mostly US's perception that China is failing. China isn't failing in its policies, we are stalling.

If US leaves, we would be in worse shape, than if you stay. For now. We lack the infrastructure to take over from the US right now, we lack the political, economic clout, and even military power. Japan would benefit the most.

We are building our own regional bank and SCO, as well as many other organizations to improve political and economic power. We are fast filling the holes in our military, and we are still waiting for GDP to surpass the US around 2025 in nominal terms.


So while it looks to you like we are failing, you are not seeing what we are lacking, but it is actually more true that Americans are not seeing how fast we are improving.

Time is the great enemy to the US, but a great friend to us, the longer we stall, the better prepared we will be.

I never said China was failing. I said China was pushing other Asian countries into the arms of the US. From China's perspective, perhaps that's good for China, because it will give China more opportunities for territorial conflict (for domestic political reasons, perhaps), and for the US, it gives us more allies.

As far as a regional bank, that's great news. I never understood Chinese resentment over voting rights in the IMF and World Bank--many Americans want us to get out of those institutions altogether. If China wants to waste its money on its own development bank, that's China's business, but I don't see how it hurts the US. As far as I'm concerned, China should take America's share of the burden at the IMF and World Bank so we can exit altogether. It would be even better if we could move the UN out of valuable land in NYC and shift it to Shanghai or Beijing.

Finally, in regards to the SCO: do you believe this will result in anything more than a trade organization? Russia and China are rivals when it comes to influence in central Asia, so I don't see the possibility of any NATO-like military alliance.

Why is time an enemy to the US?

 

[Edison Chen]

As far as a regional bank, that's great news. I never understood Chinese resentment over voting rights in the IMF and World Bank--many Americans want us to get out of those institutions altogether.

I think, maybe this is a way to promote CNY internationalization. USD is the world reserve currency, so US doesn't need this.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

I think, maybe this is a way to promote CNY internationalization. USD is the world reserve currency, so US doesn't need this.

If it helps China, that's great. I think there are easier ways to promote use of the CNY than setting up a $100 billion development bank, but I suppose the public relations aspect couldn't hurt, either.

 

[BoQ77]

I think, maybe this is a way to promote CNY internationalization. USD is the world reserve currency, so US doesn't need this.

I see there's no demand to bring CNY when go aboard, but USD

 

[NiceGuy]

Since when you viet become a spoken person of US..US this US that? you sure know US core interest

Only stupid dont know SCS(east sea) is US core interest, thats why, he deserve to be a pawn

 

[Zsari]

That's fine, but as a result of this decision, you can see why the US has been pursuing its pivot. China doesn't want what is "fair," it wants it all. Of course, the other inhabitants of Asia won't just roll over for China, and the US is exploiting that opening. I'm sure China sees some advantage in its posture (possibly for domestic political reasons), but meanwhile, the US is benefiting as well. If pushing the US out of Asia has been China's goal, it's doing the worst possible job of it.

The only way US will abandon its global military presence, asia or elsewhere is if it is no longer able to finance such committment. In that, taking in freeloaders like Philippine is not an asset but a liability. Increased US presence and committment anywhere around the globe would be welcomed by Beijing for that will only hasten the inevitable.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

The only way US will abandon its global military presence, asia or elsewhere is if it is no longer able to finance such committment. In that, taking in freeloaders like Philippine is not an asset but a liability. Increased US presence and committment anywhere around the globe would be welcomed by Beijing for that will only hasten the inevitable.

Possibly, although many of these arrangements include a subsidy by the host country, which enables the US to engage in power projection on the cheap. It certainly beats the cost and vulnerability of aircraft carriers and their associated fleets. The US presence is basically a force multiplier: we place several thousand soldiers in the locale, and the host contributes tens or hundreds of thousands. That's how we're able to project power across the globe with an armed force a fraction of the size of China's.

That said, isn't the cost borne by the US balanced by the costs borne by China in its attempt to dominate the SCS? To keep the control that China is after, that's going to take a consistent and intensive effort.

Finally, a Chinese belief that the passing of the US as global hegemon will lead to unicorn-land always takes me aback. There's no predicting what will happen at that stage, and it may not be to China's benefit.

 

[NiceGuy]

The only way US will abandon its global military presence, asia or elsewhere is if it is no longer able to finance such committment. In that, taking in freeloaders like Philippine is not an asset but a liability. Increased US presence and committment anywhere around the globe would be welcomed by Beijing for that will only hasten the inevitable.

US can forces TW to send more support to Phil, so, Chinese TW will help Phil to kill Chinese main land. Thats a tragedy of a pawn , divided into 2 parts like China

 

[Zsari]

Possibly, although many of these arrangements include a subsidy by the host country, which enables the US to engage in power projection on the cheap. It certainly beats the cost and vulnerability of aircraft carriers and their associated fleets. The US presence is basically a force multiplier: we place several thousand soldiers in the locale, and the host contributes tens or hundreds of thousands. That's how we're able to project power across the globe with an armed force a fraction of the size of China's.

That said, isn't the cost borne by the US balanced by the costs borne by China in its attempt to dominate the SCS? To keep the control that China is after, that's going to take a consistent and intensive effort.

Finally, a Chinese belief that the passing of the US as global hegemon will lead to unicorn-land always takes me aback. There's no predicting what will happen at that stage, and it may not be to China's benefit.

What's the use of local bases without aircraft carriers to utilize them? US military bases has basically been at least in the Pacific forward posts to serve its navy. There will be no ground wars there, and country like Philippine can provide little if anything in terms of naval or air combat.

As far as China is concerned, the approximity of SCS means much simplier logistics and lower cost. Afterall, China doesn't need bases of any third country there to operate. And regarding to post US world order, China seeks to return to the regional order it had for at least a thousand years, and from the way things look, its not too far from that if US is removed from the equation.

 

[Zsari]

US can forces TW to send more support to Phil, so, Chinese TW will help Phil to kill Chinese main land. Thats a tragedy of a pawn , divided into 2 parts like China

What drug are you taking? TW has nothing to send anywhere. Hell, it had even withdrew its own garrison on the Taiping island. Moreover, there are such a quantitative and qualitative gap between the US and the other players in the region, that anything other than from the US are mere token forces that will not concern China.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

What's the use of local bases without aircraft carriers to utilize them? US military bases has basically been at least in the Pacific forward posts to serve its navy. There will be no ground wars there, and country like Philippine can provide little if anything in terms of naval or air combat.

As far as China is concerned, the approximity of SCS means much simplier logistics and lower cost. Afterall, China doesn't need bases of any third country there to operate. And regarding to post US world order, China seeks to return to the regional order it had for at least a thousand years, and from the way things look, its not too far from that if US is removed from the equation.

I'm not a military strategist, but having forward bases seems to be a good beachhead upon which to base aircraft and area denial weaponry, at the very least. Of course the navy will be necessary for transport and patrol, but an island base seems to operate like a static aircraft carrier in several regards. At least, that's my assumption based on the US island bases that have been in existence for several decades--they must be there for a reason. Maybe that's a bad assumption.

Agreed about the SCS, but the US can closely approximate China's logistical advantages with our alliances in the area.

Post-world order: China was the hegemon in Asia for a long time, no doubt about it. But I would not call Asia stable during China's hegemony, either, and technology and the sheer destructiveness of war, and the advent of terrorism, since China was last hegemon make me wonder if China can really achieve the paradise it seeks once the US is gone. Certainly the rest of the world (including China, of course) has seen near-unprecedented levels of stability and prosperity under Pax Americana. The 19th century was the most recent period before US hegemony, and it wasn't great for world stability or for China.

 

[Genesis]

I'm not a military strategist, but having forward bases seems to be a good beachhead upon which to base aircraft and area denial weaponry, at the very least. Of course the navy will be necessary for transport and patrol, but an island base seems to operate like a static aircraft carrier in several regards. At least, that's my assumption based on the US island bases that have been in existence for several decades--they must be there for a reason. Maybe that's a bad assumption.

Agreed about the SCS, but the US can closely approximate China's logistical advantages with our alliances in the area.

Post-world order: China was the hegemon in Asia for a long time, no doubt about it. But I would not call Asia stable during China's hegemony, either, and technology and the sheer destructiveness of war, and the advent of terrorism, since China was last hegemon make me wonder if China can really achieve the paradise it seeks once the US is gone. Certainly the rest of the world (including China, of course) has seen near-unprecedented levels of stability and prosperity under Pax Americana. The 19th century was the most recent period before US hegemony, and it wasn't great for world stability or for China.

Chinese borders have had more or less peace during most of our time on top. Look at Europe, that's what actual not stable look like. Sure China expanded now and again.

There are European wars all the time, while Chinese wars against foreign powers are small and far between.

1000 Spanish had plans to conquer Ming China allegedly, not sure how truthful, while Zheng He's most powerful fleet almost never went to battle, and certainly took no lands.

China prefers the peaceful tributary system, which is only doable with a country like China, or Rome.The Chinese mindset even now is your land sucks, ours is great. We don't want Vietnam and we certainly don't want Philippines and Japan. Even South Korea is unsure of unification and we want to jump on that grenade?


19th and 20th century was a special case, no Asian hegemon existed, and Europe as it always is, is a war zone.

The only reason the world is more or less peaceful between the great powers right now is because of America's vast strength, not because America is peace loving, which decade did you not go into battle, name one? Just one?

Your attitude of American superiority is both true and false, it's a peace based on fear, not of good judgement. Thing is fear works for China too. I very much doubt come 2030 when the Chinese modernization project reaches a milestone, nations will continue to think they can go to war, without you know, getting their nuts blown off. And so peace is achieved.