Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Sino-American Cold War News and Discussions

China USA Cold War Pacific Asia superpower trade war war espionage Russia

  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#1
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Born Again Singularitarian

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,705 posts
  • LocationNew Orleans, LA

It's fast becoming obvious that we've stumbled into a new Cold War with China. The trade war was only the opening act.

Funny as hell, I think this is precisely what China needs to push themselves over the brink and achieve true superpower status. They couldn't do it through just a 'peaceful' rise.

 


Vice President Pence’s speech to the Hudson Institute Thursday has been widely portrayed in the global press as an official declaration that the world’s two largest economies are engaged in a “New Cold War.” It’s hard to read it any other way.
The origin of the term “Cold War” is generally credited to George Orwell, who used it in a trenchant 1945 essay pondering the geo-strategic implications of the atomic bomb. The existence of a weapon so destructive, Orwell predicted, would put an end to overt shooting wars between great powers, and replace them instead with endless below-the-brink hostilities: espionage, subterfuge, influence-peddling, propaganda, and proxy wars. Conflict would stop short of direct combat—but drag on across many fronts without resolution; the bomb’s legacy, he warned, would be a “peace that is no peace.”
That proved a prescient description of the rivalry between the US and the Soviet Union from 1945 until the collapse of the Berlin Wall—and, in recent months, has become an apt characterization of the Sino-American relationship.
In his Hudson Institute address, Pence detailed a litany of Chinese offenses: meddling in domestic US elections; doling out unfair subsidies to state-owned companies; forcing US companies to surrender technology as the price of competing in the Chinese market; mounting cyber-attacks on US companies and government agencies; recklessly confronting the US naval forces in the South China Sea; bullying Taiwan; and trampling the rights of its own citizens.
China’s goal, Pence charged, was to thwart a second term for Donald Trump, “push the United States of America from the Western Pacific and attempt to prevent us from coming to the aid of our allies.”
Pence’s speech came two days after a Chinese warship sailed within 45 yards of a US destroyer in waters near one of the disputed islets China claims in the Spratly archipelago.

And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.


#2
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Born Again Singularitarian

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,705 posts
  • LocationNew Orleans, LA

Beijing’s challenge to US warship in South China Sea ‘deliberate and calculated’, observers say

China was making a clear and deliberate statement that it will not tolerate challenges to its sovereignty when it sent a destroyer to “confront” a US warship in the South China Sea on Sunday, military and diplomatic analysts said. 
The incident happened when a Chinese Luyang-class destroyer sailed within 41 metres (135 feet) of the USS Decatur in an operation described by Washington as “unsafe and unprofessional” and by Beijing as a necessary defence of its territory.


And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.


#3
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Born Again Singularitarian

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,705 posts
  • LocationNew Orleans, LA

Are we truly prepared for a war with Russia or China?

It would be terrible if the United States got into a major war, but it would be much worse if it lost one.
Despite growing threats from Russia and China, American experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq have created weariness in the American public and have focused the country on counterterrorism and counterinsurgency instead of major power warfare.
To deter, and if necessary defeat, Russian and Chinese aggression, the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) would likely need a strategy to overcome these obstacles. 
The National Defense Strategy (NDS) seeks to focus the DOD’s efforts on “major power competition” with Russia and China. Recent Russian and Chinese actions indicate a willingness to challenge the international order and the United States’ position in it.
To prevent further adventurism, DOD could better prepare itself by investing in new technologies, developing new ways of employing them and by placing forces where they can quickly be brought to bear. More fundamentally, both the American public and DOD could face a major reorientation to be able to focus on major war.
DOD may not be able to secure the necessary resources or be given the leeway to change how it does business or to redirect its investments without broader public acceptance that the chance of warfare with Russia and China is likely enough to merit additional preparation.
Recent behavior and underlying drivers give reason for concern. For example, both the Putin and Xi governments are worried about their perceived legitimacy and their economic prospects and could engage in foreign adventures to distract from problems at home.


And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.


#4
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Born Again Singularitarian

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,705 posts
  • LocationNew Orleans, LA

The U.S. and Russia Are Shrinking Their Nuclear Arsenals—But China Isn't

The number of nuclear weapons worldwide dipped slightly in 2017, with the world’s nine nuclear powers collectively downsizing by 500 weapons.
The United States and Russia entered 2018 with fewer weapons, while China, India, and Pakistan gave their modest arsenals a slight boost. The world’s newest nuclear power, North Korea, is still a mystery with an unknown quantity of nuclear weapons.

The US and Russia individually destroyed more nukes than China has in total, though.


And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.


#5
TranscendingGod

TranscendingGod

    If I die it shall be in vain

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,102 posts

We're no where near what would be called a "Cold War" if "Cold War" is referring to the state of affairs between the Soviet Union and the United States during the communist reign. There is no impetus for one as of now. 


The growth of computation is doubly exponential growth.

#6
Alislaws

Alislaws

    Democratic Socialist Materialist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,106 posts
  • LocationLondon

 

Beijing’s challenge to US warship in South China Sea ‘deliberate and calculated’, observers say

China was making a clear and deliberate statement that it will not tolerate challenges to its sovereignty when it sent a destroyer to “confront” a US warship in the South China Sea on Sunday, military and diplomatic analysts said. 
The incident happened when a Chinese Luyang-class destroyer sailed within 41 metres (135 feet) of the USS Decatur in an operation described by Washington as “unsafe and unprofessional” and by Beijing as a necessary defence of its territory.

 

I like how the Chinese asserting control of what is almost their own coastline is an example of "Chinese aggression". 

 

This would be like China getting upset that the USA is trying to assert control of the Caribbean sea. 

 

We're no where near what would be called a "Cold War" if "Cold War" is referring to the state of affairs between the Soviet Union and the United States during the communist reign. There is no impetus for one as of now. 

 

At least this thread is more multipurpose than the "trade war" thread. It can contain china/us trade news and a whole range of things unrelated to trade, And I suspect there will be much more news to come as friction between these powers continues, so still nice to have it, even if the name might be a bit dramatic (for now)



#7
Outlook

Outlook

    N'wah

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,465 posts
  • LocationBarbary Lands

Pakistan-Indian cold war

Saudi-Iranian cold war

Sino-American cold war

EU-Russian cold war


Outlook's secret song of the ~week: https://youtu.be/GMYezR1cwFA


#8
Erowind

Erowind

    Anarchist without an adjective

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,599 posts
It's not a cold war till travel bans appear. As far as I'm concerned this is mostly media spectacle. I think calling this a cold war is a stretch right now, the Chinese aren't culturally alien like the Soviets were. I mean, yes they're vastly different, but economically they're rapidly shifting towards full capitalism. Niether side is prepared to enact Autarky and be independent, a true cold war would kill both economies right now. Maybe in 10-20 years the Chinese could be self sufficient enough to pull that trigger and rely on the new trade routes they're building, but they're not there yet. And the US certainly won't be independent enough to cut trade anytime within the next 30 years with the current political climate.

#9
Set and Meet Goals

Set and Meet Goals

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 424 posts
https://mobile.twitt...227671095541760

China, Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Nicaragua, Russia, Syria and Venezuela are condeming US sanctions during corona virus writing a letter to the UN. They can be assumed to be China's allies or at least the US's enemy's in the new cold war.

#10
Set and Meet Goals

Set and Meet Goals

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 424 posts
Can you change the title from a discussions to and discussions

#11
Set and Meet Goals

Set and Meet Goals

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 424 posts
Chinese social imperialism is coming to Australia

https://www.smh.com....326-p54e3z.html

#12
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Born Again Singularitarian

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,705 posts
  • LocationNew Orleans, LA

Can you change the title from a discussions to and discussions

I decided to merge it with the existing US/China cold war thread. But as others have said, there is no cold war at the moment.


And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.


#13
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,279 posts

Whether it deserves to be called a cold war or not there are definie tensions present.  I have actually not read the full article presented below (using Word tells me the entire article is 2,443 word in length).  I did read enough to appreciate that it fits nicely into the theme of this thread.

How Huwaii is Dividing Western Nations

 

https://techcrunch.c...estern-nations/

 

Introduction:

 

(TechCrunch) The relationship between the United Kingdom and Australia is not usually a flashpoint in international relations. After all, the two allies share a common language, ancestry, and monarch. So what caused a dustup recently that saw a senior Australian parliamentarian rebuke the British foreign secretary, and for a group of Australian MPs to then cancel a trip to London in protest?

 

The answer is fears over Huawei, the Chinese telecom giant at the center of the 5G next-generation wireless debate. Australian officials were miffed when the British government recommended that the company be allowed to play a limited role in the U.K.’s 5G deployment despite calling it a “high risk” supplier due to its close ties to the Chinese government (the company’s founder, Ren Zhengfei, served for many years as an engineer in the People’s Liberation Army). The Australian government, a fellow member of the Five Eyes intelligence alliance (which includes the two countries plus the United States, Canada, and New Zealand), disagreed back in 2017 when it barred Huawei on national security grounds.

 

Now, two close allies are at cross purposes about the very future of the internet. What’s at stake is not just who equips the future of telecom infrastructure, but the very values that the internet itself holds.

 

Two countries, ocean(s) apart

 

It’s not just Australia and Britain that find themselves separated by an ocean (or two). In America, Huawei has become the Trump Administration’s favorite company to hate. In a speech at this year’s Munich Security Conference, Defense Secretary Mark Esper called the company “today’s poster child” for “nefarious activity” while another White House official compared the company to “the Mafia.”  It should come as no surprise that the company is the target of trade restrictions, a criminal action against its CFO, and a concerted diplomatic campaign. 

 

America’s concerns are twofold. First, that critical infrastructure provided by a Chinese company with such close ties to the country’s central leadership is an unacceptable security risk. Second, that arresting Huawei’s increasing dominance risks surrendering any chance for American leadership in 5G technology.


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#14
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,279 posts

I normally don't like citing folks from the Hoover Institute as I generally find their politics far more conservative than my own.  Still, in the Real Clear Politics article presented below by a fellow at the Hoover Institution, a lot of good points are made.

 

Has the U.S.-China Cold War Now Begun?

 

https://www.realclea...tm_source=polls

 

Introduction:

(Real Clear Politics) Among the biggest victims of the coronavirus pandemic is the fiction of amicable U.S.-China relations. Those ties have been worsening for years, even before President Trump decided to call out Beijing’s predatory behavior starting in 2017. With the crisis now pitting America and China openly against each other, it seems impossible to salvage the old working ties. Washington now faces an unambiguously adversarial relationship with the Chinese Communist Party, one in which global ideological blocs may be drawn. Losing this new cold war would be a grievous blow to global transparency and liberal order. It would also threaten a significant reduction of American power and influence abroad. 

 

Even just a few months ago, it appeared that traditional engagement between the United States and China might survive. The trade agreement was the most visible sign that elites in both countries wanted to return to some level of normalcy. Outstanding issues such as Huawei and 5G were slouching towards a state of permanent irresolution, the imprisonment of a million Uighurs was largely forgotten, and cultural and student exchanges were escaping any serious interruption. A stalemate in the South China Sea was also emerging, with the Trump administration dramatically increasing the number of freedom-of-navigation operations, but with the Chinese dug into their new military bases. All that has been swept away by the coronavirus crisis.

 

What China Did and Did Not Do 

 

It is important both politically and morally to retain clarity about what has happened. Arguments that Washington and Beijing must work together to defeat the pandemic are foundering on the rocks of the Chinese government’s freely-chosen actions. CCP General Secretary Xi Jinping decided early on that concealing the truth about the outbreak, both at home and abroad, was a national priority. This put his country on a collision course with Washington and the world.  

 

Although the article mentions Trump's insistence on using the term "China virus," more could have been written explaining why that is a bad idea. It should be seen not only as a rhetorical attack on China, but also as a sign of disdain for the scientific community that otherwise reached a consensus that Covid19 or at least novel coronavirus is preferable.  One more sign of Trump's contempt for science. 


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#15
Set and Meet Goals

Set and Meet Goals

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 424 posts

This seems to signal the start of the new cold war and may be remembered in history as the declaration of the new cold war

 

https://www.whitehou...obal-ambitions/



#16
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,279 posts

The UK and U.S. are Starting a New Cold War With Russia and China.  So What are These Governments Trying to Hide?

 

https://www.counterp...trying-to-hide/

 

Introduction:

(Counterpunch) The new Cold War launched by the West against China and Russia is escalating by the day. In a single week, the Kremlin has been unmasked trying to discover the secrets of Britain’s pursuit of a vaccine against coronavirus and revelations are promised about covert Russian interference in British politics. Boris Johnson made a U-turn on Huawei, announcing that it is to be kicked out of participation in the 5G network because it poses a threat to British security, though a curiously slow-burning one since they will only be evicted over seven years.

 

The US may put the widely-used Chinese video app TikTok on a blacklist that would prevent Americans from using it. The administration is considering using the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act in order to penalise TikTok as “an unusual and extraordinary threat” to US security. President Trump says he is considering banning the app in response to the way China handled the coronavirus epidemic.

 

This is a clue to the prime motive for Trump to ramp up the Cold War against China, which is his determination to win a second term in the White House by diverting voters’ attention from his catastrophic handling of the pandemic. “Don’t defend Trump – attack China,” is the advice of a leaked 57-page memo circulated among Republican Senatorial candidates in April. It suggested that Republican politicians should blame China for starting the epidemic by allowing the virus to escape from a laboratory in Wuhan, lying about it and hoarding medical equipment needed to treat the sick.

 

A striking feature of the US and British diplomatic offensive against China is how little criticism or even discussion it has provoked in any quarter in the US and Britain, even from those whose normal knee-jerk reaction is to denounce anything said or done by Trump or Johnson. This may be because these critics are genuinely horrified by undoubted Chinese oppression of the Uighurs, proposed imposition of dictatorial rule in Hong Kong, and assertions of military power in the South China Sea and on the Chinese-Indian frontier.

 


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#17
Erowind

Erowind

    Anarchist without an adjective

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,599 posts
/\ In case there's doubt in anyone's mind. The virus is not a lab escapee! That lab is a joint research lab with the French government and France has repeatedly denied this conspiracy and stated the lab is compliant with French observers. These claims are disinformation!

#18
tierbook

tierbook

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,307 posts
  • LocationCharleston sc

/\ In case there's doubt in anyone's mind. The virus is not a lab escapee! That lab is a joint research lab with the French government and France has repeatedly denied this conspiracy and stated the lab is compliant with French observers. These claims are disinformation!

Not that it'll matter much if the rain in the area keeps up like it's supposed to.



#19
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,279 posts

The U.S. Can't Change China

 

https://theweek.com/...nt-change-china

 

Introduction:

(The Week) It has not gotten wide attention thanks to the country falling to pieces, but the Trump administration has all but declared a new cold war against China. In a recent hardline speech at the Nixon Library, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo declared that "today China is increasingly authoritarian at home, and more aggressive in its hostility to freedom everywhere else." He argued that economic development had made China more authoritarian, not less, and it had abused the international trade system to steal jobs, production, and intellectual property from the United States.

 

However, it's not just Republicans. Democrats have also taken a much harder line on China of late — indeed, some Biden campaign ads attack Trump from the right. "Trump said he would get tough on China," says one. "He didn't get tough, he got played."

 

It would be a great mistake for American politicians to bluster their way into a high-stakes international conflict. The United States' severe internal problems make a mockery of the idea of standing up to China in the name of freedom, and confrontation would surely lead to disaster. Meanwhile nothing short of the future of the planet is riding on successful diplomatic engagement.

 

On first blush, the Trump administration's stance on China is utterly preposterous. Pompeo raises worries about China's authoritarianism, but he is part of an administration that is straight-up trying to steal the 2020 election. Trump is a classic budding tinpot dictator down to his ill-fitting suits, and the rest of the Republican Party (with a couple minor exceptions) would not object to setting up a Chinese Communist Party-style dictatorship in this country — so long as they were in charge and could prevent poor people from getting any welfare. Trump and the GOP are a million times' greater threat to American freedom than China ever could be. Similarly, Pompeo's complaints about human rights abuses against Uighur Muslims ring hollow given Trump's own Muslim ban and migrant concentration camps. So does his attempt to blame the coronavirus pandemic on CCP misrule, because Trump so obviously screwed up the U.S. response. Most of Western Europe has gotten it under control, just like China — only in America has it been allowed to rage basically unchecked.


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#20
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,279 posts

Instead of Cold War, perhaps we should be thinking in terms of Tech War.

 

The First Stage of a Tech War Between the US and China

 

https://www.alternet.org/2020/08/the-first-stage-of-a-tech-war-between-the-u-s-and-china/

 

Extract:

 

(Alternet) The U.S. tech war on China continues, banning Chinese equipment from its network, and asking its Five Eyes partners and NATO allies to follow suit. It is a market and a technology denial regime that seeks to win back manufacturing that the U.S. and European countries have lost to China.

 

International trade assumed that goods and equipment could be sourced from any part of the world. The first breach in this scheme was the earlier round of U.S. sanctions on Huawei last year, that any company that used 25 percent or more of U.S. content had to play by the U.S. sanction rules. This meant U.S. software, or chips based on U.S. designs, could not be exported to Huawei. The latest round of U.S. sanctions in May this year stretched the reach of U.S. sanctions to cover any goods produced with U.S. equipment, extending its sovereignty well beyond its borders.

 

In the last three decades…the U.S. has increasingly outsourced manufacturing to other countries, but still retained control over the global economy through its control over global finance—banks, payment systems, insurance, investment funds. With the fresh slew of sanctions, another layer of U.S. control over the global economy has been revealed: its control over technology, both in terms of intellectual property and critical manufacturing equipment in chip making.

 

The new trade sanction that the U.S. has imposed is in violation of the World Trade Organization’s rules. It invokes national security…on matters that are clearly trade-related. Why the U.S. has gutted the WTO, refusing to agree to any new nominations to the dispute settlement tribunal, has now become clear. China cannot bring the illegal U.S. sanctions to the WTO for a dispute settlement, as the dispute settlement body itself has been made virtually defunct by the United States.

 

… it is not one battle in one arena that will decide who wins. 5G is only one battle theater; there are many others. And in many of those, China holds the cards. The rest of the world…will…have to decide where their future lies—not as a binary choice between the U.S. and China, but as independent players. It is the larger forces of political economy at the global level that will decide this war.

 

It doesn't break my heart to see the WTO gutted. I suppose that others might now charge the U.S. with hypocrisy: push the WTO agenda when it served the U.S. interests, oppose it when it undermines those narrowly defined interests .

 

At any rate, I think a problem with the Trump approach is that it is trying to accomplish too many things at once.  Personally, I am not so concerned about protection of intellectual property rights.  In large part, that is a matter of defending the rights of billionaires to receive exorbitant returns on their investments in certain fields.  I am more concerned about defending democratic rights, such as in Hong Kong, and of defending the rights of minorities, such as in Tibet or of the Uighurs.  I am also not a great fan of exporting good paying jobs to China where workers are often employed under slave labor conditions. For Trump, I suspect that these considerations are more a matter of propaganda and are thus of secondary concern, or even indifference.


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls






Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: China, USA, Cold War, Pacific, Asia, superpower, trade war, war, espionage, Russia

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users