China containment policy

From Infogalactic: the planetary knowledge core
Jump to: navigation, search

The China containment policy is a political term referring to a claimed goal of U.S. foreign policy to diminish the economic and political growth of the People’s Republic of China. The term harkens back to the U.S. containment policy against communist countries during the Cold War.

The theory asserts that the United States needs a weak, divided China to continue its hegemony in Asia. This is accomplished by the United States establishing military, economic, and diplomatic ties with countries adjacent to China's borders, frustrating China's own attempts at alliance-building and economic partnership. The presence of American military in Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan;[1] recently strengthened ties with South Korea[2] and Japan;[3] efforts to improve relations with India[4] and Vietnam;[2] and the Obama administration's 2012 Pivot to Asia Strategy for increased American involvement in the Pacific have been pointed to as evidence of a containment policy. The United States has officially claimed they have no China containment policy and that they "want China to succeed and prosper."[5]

Justification

Supporters of Chinese containment or increased American involvement in East Asia have cited the United States as a counterbalance to the excesses of Chinese expansion. Countries in territorial disputes with China, such as in the South China Sea and the Senkaku Islands, have complained about harassment in the disputed areas.[6][7][8][9] Some experts have suggested that China may leverage their economic strength in such disputes, one example being the sudden restriction on Chinese imports of Filipino bananas during tensions over the Scarborough Shoal.[10]

The 2006 U.S. National Security Strategy states that China has 'the greatest potential of any nation to militarily compete with the US and field disruptive military technologies that over time offset traditional US advantages.'[11] The document continues by stating that China must be more open in reporting its military expenditures and refrain from "locking up" energy supplies by continuing to obtain energy contracts with disreputable regimes in Africa and Central Asia.[12] The policy assumes that measures should be taken against China to prevent it from seeking hegemony in the Asia-Pacific region and/or worldwide.[13]

Strategic alliances

US–India: (See India–United States relations) It is assumed was established or reconfirmed during Bush’s visit to India in March 2006. The media speculated about the US using India to contain China, claims that the Indian officials publicly denied.[14][15]

US–Japan–Australia: (See Japan–United States relations and Australia–United States relations) Labeled by the Asian media[quantify] as a "little NATO against China" or the new "triple alliance", or "the axis of democracy" by the Economist.[16] Condoleezza Rice’s visit to Australia in March 2006 for the "trilateral security forum" with the Japanese foreign minister Taro Aso and his Australian counterpart Alexander Downer.[17][18]

Japan–Australia: (See Australia–Japan relations) On March 15, 2007 both nations signed a strategic military partnership agreement,[19] which analysts[quantify] believe is aimed at alienating China.[20]

US–Japan–Australia–India: In May 2007, the four nations signed a strategic military partnership agreement – the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue.

US–Japan–India: The three nations held their first trilateral meeting in Dec 2011.[21]

Challenges

Australia: Australia has a growing dependency on China’s market. Its mining industry is booming owing to Chinese demand.[22] During the second Bush Administration, ahead of the visit by Condoleezza Rice and her warning about China becoming a "negative force"[23] the then Australian Foreign Affairs Minister, Alexander Downer, warned that Australia does not agree with a policy of containment of China.[24] Rice clarified that the U.S. is not advocating a containment policy.

India: China is India's largest trading partner.[25] George W. Bush’s visit to India was seen in part as an attempt to boost bilateral trade and to expand US influence, by offering India high nuclear technology. China is the United States' fifth-largest trading partner in terms of exports, while India ranks only twenty-fourth.[26]

Japan: China has already overtaken the US as Japan’s largest trading partner.[27] China gives imports from Japan preference and priority over the US[citation needed] which has been an important factor in the recovery of Japan's decade long stagnant economy.

Philippines: Various factions of the Muslim Moro people are waging a war for independence against the Philippines. The Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) of Nur Misuari declared its support for China against the Philippines in the South China Sea dispute, calling both China and the Moro people as victims of Philippine colonialism, and noting China's history of friendly relation with the Sultanate of Sulu in the region.[28] The MNLF also denounced America's assistance to the Philippines in their colonization of the Moro people in addition to denouncing the Philippines claims to the islands disputed with China, and denouncing America for siding with the Philippines in the dispute, noting that in 1988 China "punished" Vietnam for attempting to set up a military presence on the disputed islands, and noting that the Moros and China maintained peaceful relations, while on the other hand the Moros had to resist other colonial powers, having to fight the Spanish, fight the Americans, and fight the Japanese, in addition to fighting the Philippines.[29]

While the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) signed a peace deal with the Philippines, the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) did not and renewed armed resistance against Philippine rule in Zamboanga and on September 15, 2013, in response to the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF's) fighting against the Philippine army, the New York Times published an article crediting "every" Philippine government for having "struggled" to "bring peace" to the Muslims of Mindanao since 1946 when it became independent and claimed that it is the "belief" of the Muslims that they are being subjected to oppression and exploitation by the Christians that is the "problem" which is causing the conflict and the newspaper also claimed that the conflict stretched back to 1899 when Moro "insurrectionists" were "quelled" by the American army.[30] On January 26, 2014 the New York Times published another article claiming that "every Philippine government" has "struggled to bring peace to Mindanao" and claimed that reports of exploitation and oppression by the Filipino Christians originated from what Muslims "say" and the newspaper also praised President Benigno S. Aquino III's "landmark peace deal" with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF).[31] The New York Times labelled Moro fighters as "Muslim-led groups" and as "violent".[32] The New York Times blamed "Islamic extremist groups" for carrying out attacks in the Philippines.[33] The New York Times editorial board endorsed Philippine President Benigno Aquino's planned peace deal and the passage of "Bangsamoro Basic Law", blaming the "Muslim insurgency" for causing trouble to the "largely Catholic country".[34] The New York Times claimed that "Islamic militants" were fighting the Philippine military.[35]

The New York Times claimed the peace deal between the Philippines and Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) "seeks to bring prosperity to the restive south and weaken the appeal of the extremist groups.", and linked the winding down of an American military counterterrorism operation to increased American military cooperation with the Philippines against China.[36] The New York Times hailed Mr Aquino's "peace agreement" as an "accomplishment" as it reported on Aquino raising the "alarm" on China in the South China Sea.[37] The New York Times editorial board published an article siding with the Philippines against China in the South China Sea dispute and supporting the Philippines actions against China.[38][39] The New York Times editorial board endorsed aggressive American military action against China in the South China Sea.[40][41]

American and Filipino forces launched a joint operation against the Moros in the Mamasapano clash, in which Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) fighters manage to kill 44 Filipino police commandos and caused massive blow back for the botched raid, putting a decisive halt to American plans for its Asia military "pivot" in the Philippines.[42]

See also

References

  1. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  3. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  4. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  5. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  6. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  7. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  8. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  9. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  10. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  11. ↑ Hawkins, William R (June 2, 2007). The dangers in talking to China. Asia Times Online.
  12. ↑ Bush, George (March 2006). The National Security Strategy of the United States of America. The White House.
  13. ↑ Feng, Huiyun (2007). Chinese strategic culture and foreign policy decision-making: Confucianism, leadership and war. Routledge. p.81. ISBN 978-0-415-41815-7.
  14. ↑ Nuclear deal no threat to China, Pak: Narayanan. March 2006. Online News.
  15. ↑ Gilani, Iftikhar (March 18, 2006). "US-India N-deal should not threaten Pakistan, China". Daily Times.
  16. ↑ Australia and Japan cosy up. The Economist. March 16, 2007.
  17. ↑ Jain, Purnendra (March 18, 2006). "A 'little NATO' against China". Asia Times Online.
  18. ↑ Weisman, Steven (March 17, 2006). "Rice and Australian Counterpart Differ About China". The New York Times.
  19. ↑ Graeme Dobell (March 18, 2007). Japan, Australia declare strategic partnership. ABC News Online Australia.
  20. ↑ Walters, Patrick; Callick, Rowan (March 16, 2007). India's inclusion in security pact risks alienating China. The Australian.
  21. ↑ http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/12/23/inside_the_first_ever_us_japan_india_trilateral_meeting
  22. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  23. ↑ http://news.oneindia.in/2006/03/11/rice-says-china-must-not-become-a-negative-force-1142062463.html
  24. ↑ http://www.china.org.cn/english/2006/Mar/162192.htm
  25. ↑ India - CIA - The World Factbook.
  26. ↑ Thakurta, Paranjoy Guha (March 15, 2006). "China could overtake US's India trade". Asia Times Online.
  27. ↑ Japan - CIA - The World Factbook.
  28. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  29. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  30. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  31. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  32. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  33. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  34. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  35. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  36. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  37. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  38. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  39. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  40. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  41. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  42. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.

External links

Retrieved from "https://infogalactic.com/w/index.php?title=China_containment_policy&oldid=4619712"