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
32 replies to this topic

#21
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,718 posts

China Feeling Cautious Optimism About Possible Improved Relations With U.S. During Biden Presidency

 

https://www.japantim...election-china/

 

Introduction:

(Japan Times) The Chinese government, which has been giving “we-don’t-comment-on-other-countries’-internal affairs” responses to questions about the United States presidential election, has reacted, albeit unofficially, with an almost audible sigh of relief after Joe Biden was declared the winner over incumbent Donald Trump.

 

However, China has held back while American friends and allies such as Canada, the United Kingdom, France and Germany and regional countries such as Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, India, Indonesia and Australia congratulated president-elect Biden. China knows that it is neither friend nor ally and thus it would be inappropriate to thrust itself into the front to congratulate the new American leader.

 

But this doesn’t alter the fact that the U.S. relationship with China is the most important in the world. And China has made clear its hope that a change in administration would lead to an improvement in the bilateral relationship.

 

Such a hope was officially voiced Nov. 5, two days before the designation of Joe Biden as president-elect, by Vice Foreign Minister Le Yucheng, who called on “the new American administration” to “meet the Chinese side halfway” and move bilateral relations forward “along the right track.”

 

Chinese state media have been quoting academic experts who voiced cautious optimism about greater moderation on the part of Washington, if not a change in policy.


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


#22
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,718 posts

China Says It Tailed U.S. Warship in Taiwan Strait

 

https://www.reuters....n-idUSKBN28T0GX

 

Introduction:

SHANGHAI/TAIPEI (Reuters) - China’s military tailed a U.S. warship as it passed through the sensitive Taiwan Strait on Saturday, the Chinese military said, denouncing such missions as sending “flirtatious glances” to supporters of Taiwan independence.

 

China, which claims democratically-run Taiwan as its own territory, has been angered by stepped-up U.S. support for the island, including arms sales and sailing warships through the Taiwan Strait, further souring Beijing-Washington relations.

 

The U.S. Navy said the guided missile destroyer USS Mustin had conducted “a routine Taiwan Strait transit (on) Dec. 19 in accordance with international law”.

 

“The ship’s transit through the Taiwan Strait demonstrates the U.S. commitment to a free and open Indo-Pacific,” it added.

 

This is the 12th sailing through the strait by the U.S. Navy this year.


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


#23
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,718 posts

U.S. Carrier Group Enters South China Sea Amid Taiwan Tensions

 

https://www.msn.com/...ocid=uxbndlbing

 

Introduction:

TAIPEI (Reuters) - A U.S. aircraft carrier group led by the USS Theodore Roosevelt has entered the South China Sea to promote "freedom of the seas", the U.S. military said on Sunday, at a time when tensions between China and Taiwan have raised concern in Washington.

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command said in a statement the strike group entered the South China Sea on Saturday, the same day Taiwan reported a large incursion of Chinese bombers and fighter jets into its air defence identification zone in the vicinity of the Pratas Islands.

 

The U.S. military said the carrier strike group was in the South China Sea, a large part of which is claimed by China, to conduct routine operations "to ensure freedom of the seas, build partnerships that foster maritime security".

 

"After sailing through these waters throughout my 30-year career, it's great to be in the South China Sea again, conducting routine operations, promoting freedom of the seas, and reassuring allies and partners," Rear Adm. Doug Verissimo, commander of the strike group, was quoted as saying.

 

"With two-thirds of the world's trade travelling through this very important region, it is vital that we maintain our presence and continue to promote the rules-based order which has allowed us all to prosper," Verissimo said in the statement.


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


#24
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,718 posts

Xi Jinping Warns Against "New Cold War" in Davos Speech

 

https://www.axios.co...9c581fefef.html

 

Introduction:

(Axios) Chinese President Xi Jinping warned that a "new cold war" could turn hot, and must be avoided, in a speech on Monday at World Economic Forum’s virtual “Davos Agenda” conference.

 

Why it matters: Xi didn't refer directly to U.S.-China tensions, but the subtext was clear. These were his first remarks to an international audience since the inauguration of President Biden, whose administration has already concurred with Donald Trump's determination that China is committing "genocide" against Uyghur Muslims, and issued a warning about China's aggression toward Taiwan.

 

What he's saying:

 

“We should respect and accommodate differences, avoid meddling in other countries’ internal affairs and resolve disagreements through consultation and dialogue. History and reality have made it clear time and again that the misguided approach of antagonism and confrontation — be it in the form of a cold war, hot war, trade war or tech war — will eventually hurt all countries’ interest and undermine everyone’s well-being.”

— Xi Jinping

 

Xi also laid out a four-step approach to ensuring the world emerges stronger from the COVID-19 crisis. (See linked article for further discussion).


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


#25
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,718 posts

China Warns Taiwan That Independence 'Means War'

 

https://www.reuters....n-idUSKBN29X0V3

 

Introduction:

BEIJING (Reuters) - China toughened its language towards Taiwan on Thursday, warning after recent stepped up military activities near the island that “independence means war” and that its armed forces were acting in response to provocation and foreign interference.

 

Taiwan, claimed by China as its own territory, reported multiple Chinese fighter jets and bombers entering its southwestern air defence identification zone last weekend, prompting Washington to urge Beijing to stop pressuring Taiwan.

 

China believes that Taiwan’s democratically-elected government is moving the island towards a declaration of formal independence, though Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen has repeatedly said it is already an independent country called the Republic of China, its formal name.

 

Asked at a monthly news briefing about the air force’s recent activities, Chinese Defence Ministry spokesman Wu Qian said Taiwan is an inseparable part of China.

 

“The military activities carried out by the Chinese People’s Liberation Army in the Taiwan Strait are necessary actions to address the current security situation in the Taiwan Strait and to safeguard national sovereignty and security,” he said.

 

This is really a disturbing pattern on the part of Chinese elites.  Independent Tibet is declared to be a part of China and annexed accordingly. In violation of agreements reached regarding "one country, two systems"  Hong Kong's independence is ended. Now Taiwan is threatened.  What arrogance.


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


#26
PhoenixRu

PhoenixRu

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,330 posts

China Warns Taiwan That Independence 'Means War'

Now Taiwan is threatened.  What arrogance.

 

What arrogance? China is right. Taiwan is not independent country, just a bizarre relic of the past, a separatist entity emerged on CHINESE territory after their last civil war. Yes, long-lived and economically successful entity, but this doesn't change a thing. Their de-facto existence is tolerated, but any step to de-jure independence will indeed mean war. And anyway, sooner or later, one way or another, the problem must and will be solved...

 

And btw, even on US world maps Taiwan is coloured as a part of China:

 

33136245.jpg



#27
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,718 posts

^^^The people of Taiwan have clearly indicated through the leaders that they have chosen that they do not want to be under the Communist system that prevails on the mainland.  You may not care about such niceties as what the people of an area want, but that holds sway in my books. I started off my comment indicating that I was referring to "Chinese elites."  By what right do such elites have to rule Taiwan.?

 

That it was once controlled almost before living memory by a different set of elites based in Beiijing?

 

By divine right perhaps?

 

Because of the color of a particular map?

 

These are not reasons to overrule the wishes of the people of Taiwan. To persuade me, you will have to do better than that.


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


#28
PhoenixRu

PhoenixRu

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,330 posts

The people of Taiwan have clearly indicated through the leaders that they have chosen that they do not want to be under the Communist system that prevails on the mainland.  You may not care about such niceties as what the people of an area want, but that holds sway in my books.

 

Well, this part would have been more or less convincing if you (not you personally, but at least anyone from westerners) recognized the same right of Crimeans which, in 2014, too "have clearly indicated" they wish to have literally nothing in common with post-maidan mainland Ukraine. But since you (again, not only you personally) didn't do that, let me consider your post an example of double standards.

 

That it was once reassigned almost before living memory to a different set of Soviet elites based in Kiev?

 

By divine right perhaps?

 

Because of the color of a particular map?

 

These are not reasons to overrule the wishes of the people of Crimea. To persuade me, you will have to do better than that.

 

In short, we're both can play these "international law and territorial integrity" vs "clearly indicated people's will" games. But that's just a mutual trolling. What's really happens on the ground depends, eventually, on the number of tanks and helicopters (and readiness to use them if necessary), and not on who will be making a better speeches.



#29
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,718 posts

^^^So, in order to demonstrate a "double standard" you have to insert words that I never typed.  As I recall, and I sometimes wonder if that was a good call on my part, I did not object to the Crimea as being considered a part of Russia and not the Ukraine.  Although I have not mentioned it, it is my understanding that Putin’s Russia decided to resolve the situation through invasion. While Russia may have legitimate claims to the Crimes, it seems like in the 21st century a more civilized way of forwarding those claims could have been found.

 

You do make a good point in regards to some U.S. elites and even rank and file nationalists in the U.S.  Too often, their recognition of democratic rights only applied if those exercising those rights endorsed a U.S. centric form of capitalism.  Where popular sentiment ran counter to that ideology, it was taken as sure evidence that the processes involved were not democratic, or at least should not be respectfully recognized as such. Who do you suppose has been the hardest of hardliners in that regard?

 

Why, none other than the Republicans. The same party that put Donald Trump into office.

 

Still, this argument of double standards cuts both ways.  Are we to have one high standard for U.S. elites, and a separate low (or nonexistent) standard for Chinese elites?


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


#30
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,718 posts

The Reluctant Making of a China Hawk

 

https://theweek.com/...king-china-hawk

 

Introduction:

(The Week) I never intended to become a China hawk. Indeed, for years I prided myself on cultivating a relatively detached view of the reality of the power dynamic between the United States and the People's Republic. But I have slowly and reluctantly come to a much more hawkish view, and it is one that fills me with foreboding.

 

For decades, America's policy toward China aimed at smoothly integrating it into the existing U.S.-led international order, with strategists divided mainly on whether carrots and sticks should be deployed. The Obama administration's "pivot to Asia," its deepening security cooperation with Australia and Vietnam, its opening to Myanmar and embrace of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, were all efforts to demonstrate the risks of challenging the United States while leaving the door open to a deeply cooperative relationship.

 

That policy was already foundering on its unpopularity at home and increasing Chinese truculence when the Trump administration tore it up. They took a far more confrontational approach, beginning with more emphatic support for Taiwan and its attempted opening with North Korea, and extending to its trade war and its effort to limit the reach of telecom giant Huawei. But an alternative end-game was never clearly articulated, and the fruits of confrontation were hard to discern: The trade war ended equivocally at best, Trump's North Korea gambit went nowhere, and the main beneficiary of Trump's erratic behavior appeared to be China itself.

 

I am not surprised that neither strategy really worked, because both are based on the presumption that America's predominance remains both substantial and sustainable. Neither truly reckons with the potential scale of Chinese power.

 

A country four times America's population, once it fully modernized and was operating at the frontier of innovation, was destined to become a challenger the likes of which America had never faced. Despite what the Obama administration hoped, a China capable of truly challenging America would never tolerate being integrated into an American-led order. But by the same token, a China capable of truly challenging America wouldn't be faced down easily either, as Trump seemed to believe.

 

While I understand the impulse toward being a hawk, I think there is an alternative to war: noncooperation.

 

Now, noncooperation between nation states usually does result in war. Still, I am not a nation state, so don't expect my opinions on this matter to coincide with the that of the Biden administration.


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


#31
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,718 posts

Perhaps this thread title should have been expanded to note problems other democracies are encountering with China.

 

China Formally Arrests Australian TV Anchor Cheng Lei on Spying Allegations

 

https://www.washingt...e898_story.html

 

Introduction:

(The Washington Post) TAIPEI, Taiwan — China is expected to charge the Australian journalist Cheng Lei with supplying state secrets overseas, signaling a continued hard line from Beijing against U.S. allies, as well as reporters working in the country.

 

Australian Foreign Minister Marise Payne disclosed Monday that Cheng, a former business news anchor on the Chinese state broadcaster’s English-language network, CGTN, was formally arrested on Friday, six months after authorities detained her.

The high-profile case coincides with an extraordinarily turbulent period in China-Australia relations. China moved formally against Cheng on Friday, a day after Payne’s office called for a United Nations investigation into allegations of widespread sexual abuse in Chinese detention centers in Xinjiang, deeply angering Beijing. Last year, Australia led calls for an international inquiry into the origins of the coronavirus, drawing strong-armed Chinese retaliation in the form of steep tariffs on imports of Australian barley, beef, wine and other goods.

 

China detains Australian anchor for Chinese state-run TV network

Australian officials have been able to visit Cheng while in detention, according to Payne. Australia “has raised its serious concerns about Ms. Cheng’s detention regularly at senior levels, including about her welfare and conditions of detention,” Payne said in a statement. “We expect basic standards of justice, procedural fairness and humane treatment to be met, in accordance with international norms.”

 

 

 

Other extracted observation of interest:

…Relations between the two countries have steadily soured since Australia’s government banned Huawei from the country’s 5G network in 2018 and accused China of running extensive political influence and spying campaigns in the country.


...Chinese officials and state media have repeatedly accused Canberra of doing Washington’s bidding and suggested that political and economic relations could improve if Australia were to distance itself from the orbit of American allies seeking to contain China and engage with Beijing on grounds of “mutual respect.”


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


#32
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,718 posts

How the United States can chart a new path that avoids war with China

 

https://thebulletin....war-with-china/

 

Introduction:

(Bulletin of Atomic Scientists) The Biden administration has said that it will conduct a full review of trade and economic relations with China. It needs, actually, to conduct a review of all aspects of Sino-American relations: trade; technology; cultural, student, and scientific exchanges; and above all, security. There is room for vast improvement in all these realms, but the most pressing (and potentially dangerous) area involves security.

 

Relations between China and the United States have degenerated so far that some foreign policy experts now believe that war between the countries is possible. While this is a minority view, it is a dangerous one. In the past, a US-China war was often considered unlikely for reasons of mutual economic interdependence and nuclear deterrence, not to mention the huge costs of war. Moreover, it has been said, ideological conflict and regional and international striving for advantage are not reasons enough for war. But now more pessimistic voices are also being heard. Citing pre-World War I analogies, in which it was (quite inaccurately) said that economic interdependence among European powers made war impossible, and noting what Harvard University’s Graham Allison has called the “Thucydides Trap,” in which there is a drift towards war when an emerging power threatens to displace an existing leading power, some believe war between China and the United States is becoming more conceivable and even probable.

 

We are concerned with the current direction of US-China’s policies, but we believe that the pessimists both overstate the possibility of a US-China war and understate the consequences of possible armed conflict. The production of so-called “small” nuclear weapons is given as a reason for the possibility of war without massive destruction. Nuclear war among nuclear powers has not occurred since the spread of nuclear weapons precisely because destruction would be huge and ghastly. But even lower-yield nuclear weapons nonetheless are quite deadly; each has the destructive potential of thousands of WWII airplane bombs. We cannot tell how limited the use of such weapons would be in advance of armed conflict, and, since Chinese missiles can reach our shores, we do not know if such a conflict could be contained.

 

While I am not sure I agree with all of the suggestions for a reengagement with China contained in the linked article, some of them may be appropriate.

 

aircraft-carriers-in-South-China-Sea.jpg

The aircraft carriers USS Nimitz and USS Ronald Reagan transit the South China Sea in July 2020.

(Photo credit: US Navy)


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


#33
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,718 posts

I think a serious weakness of the article I cite and link below is the failure to acknowledge China's shameful treatment of its Uyghur ethnic minority, its repressive policies in Hong Kong, and its bellicose attitude toward Taiwan. Still, its points regarding "financialization" are worth considering.

 

America's Neoliberal Financialization Policy vs. China's Industrial Socialism

 

https://www.counterp...rial-socialism/

 

Extract:

(Counterpunch) The U.S.-China confrontation is not simply a national rivalry, but a conflict of economic and social systems. The reason why today’s world is being plunged into an economic and near-military Cold War 2.0 is to be found in the prospect of socialist control of what Western economies since classical antiquity have treated as privately owned rent-yielding assets: money and banking (along with the rules governing debt and foreclosure), land and natural resources, and infrastructure monopolies.

 

This contrast in whether money and credit, land and natural monopolies will be privatized and duly concentrated in the hands of a rentier oligarchy or used to promote general prosperity and growth has basically become one of finance capitalism and socialism.

 

… China and Russia are existential threats to the global expansion of financialized rentier wealth. Today’s Cold War 2.0 aims to deter China and potentially other counties from socializing their financial systems, land and natural resources, and keeping infrastructure utilities public to prevent their being monopolized in private hands to siphon off economic rents at the expense of productive investment in economic growth.

 

The United States hoped that China might be as gullible as the Soviet Union and adopt neoliberal policy permitting its wealth to be privatized and turned into rent-extracting privileges, to be sold off to Americans. “What the free world expected when it welcomed China into the free trade body [the World Trade Organization] in 2001,” explained Clyde V. Prestowitz Jr, trade advisor in the Reagan administration, was that, “from the time of Deng Xiaoping’s adoption of some market methods in 1979 and especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1992 … increased trade with and investment in China would inevitably lead to the marketization of its economy, the demise of its state-owned enterprises.”[6]

 

But instead of adopting market-based neoliberalism, Mr. Prestowitz complained, China’s government supported industrial investment and kept money and debt control in its own hands. This government control was “at odds with the liberal, rules-based global system” along the neoliberal lines that had been imposed on the former Soviet economies after 1991


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