Democrats & Liberals: Archives

AP, excellent topic and coverage of it. At this point, I see the Bush administration as almost completely impotent regarding China. The more Bush blusters, the easier it is for China and its new trading partners (EU, India, Middle East, S. America) to just blow him off.

The rest of the world clearly sees the economic might of the 21st century shifting from West to East. Which means they know where their future trade prosperity will be coming from.

It is laughable that in the same week Rice advises India of our adversarial role with China, India concludes major agreements with China for their mutual future as trading partners. Impotence knows no bounds with this President. Unable to sustain the troop losses in Iraq, Bush pulls the troops away from engagement with Iraqi insurgents. Unable to come up with a plan for our economic future, Bush focuses on foreign policy while driving up the national debt by close to 2.5 Trillion dollars, more by the end of his term. Unable to get the terrorists responsible for 9/11, he goes after Iraq. Unable, unable, unable… Posterity will not be kind toward him or the public that reelected him…

AP -

Good post. I was going to bring up the Sino-Indian pact as well, but David beat me to it.

At this point, I think U.S. policy towards China is still indeterminate. Any president has a conflicted view of China, and conflicting influences on him:

Labor - wants “fair trade”, strict quotas
Business - wants “free trade”, no quotas
Human rights/Christian groups - want tough line on rights abuses, prison labor
Pro-Taiwan lobby - obvious goals
Pro-China lobby - also obvious, and close to power as we saw with Clinton and Gore
Neo-con ideology - pushes confrontation and containment
War on terror - China is a key ally

As much as we see Bush and Rice talking a tough game now, they’ve been quietly pro-Chinese on the biggest trade issue of 2005: garment quotas. This was huge, and the administration has chosen not to renew quotas despite significant pressure.

Also, I don’t see India as a key player on the China front. It’s not irrelevant, but the “military implications” of which Rice speaks pertain far more to India’s western border. I can’t stretch my mind far enough to imagine a scenario where China and India end up fighting each other in a hot war; but my imagination is hardly needed at all to see a hot war between India and Pakistan.

Chops:

The key to China and India is the UN Veto. The US will veto for any US Ally. The UN Veto has become a common blackmail threat. This is what the Israeli-US Relationship has taught the world. You NEED a Veto Country so you can do anything you want. If India crosses the line, China becomes key for that Veto.

Aldous -
With the UN reform proposals recently brought forward, India will be fighting hard for a permanent seat on the Security Council and playing the current members against each other to get it.

In the meantime, however, don’t count on China’s veto no matter who you are. In 33 years on the Security Council, China has only used the veto twice. The U.S., by comparison, has vetoed twice each of the last four years, and frequently vetoed five times a year or more during the Cold War. (source).

Chops,

The last time India and China fought, India was beaten down with no question as to the victor. Now that China is considerably stronger, and India not so much, I wouldn’t think India would dare confront China without massive support from the US, Japan, and probably its border mates.

American Pundit:

Nice article.

There are some very very strong arguments that would say that another cold war is not in the cards. I would be interested on your thoughts of them.

1. Trade. Our trade with China is very large and getting larger. In 1947 we had enough cheap labor in Japan, we didn’t need Russia. If nothing else Walmart needs China!! China also needs our ecnomy. I disagree with David that China can “blow us off”. Why would China “blow off” the number one consuming nation in the world? What would they do with the millions of unemployed workers if they shut us down?

2. Raw materials. One of the major reasons commodities have risen is that China is importing, because they lake key ingredients to growth LIKE OIL. China imports oil, Russia exports oil.

3. Information age. With all of the cell phone and Internet technology I just don’t see how China could keep it’s people in the dark. “It’s hard to keep them on the farm, once they have seen the circus.”

4. It’s not in their interest to take part in a Cold War. China has only recently come out of poverty. It wasn’t long ago that the Chinese could not even feed their own people. Industry in China has only recently come to the end of their labor supply. That means that wages in China are going up and an active middle class is going to form. (great place for some future labor unions). The Chinese are the ones facing inflation problems not the US. (I heard one report of workers demanding a 30% raises and getting them. Now that is inflationary).

I think China is more like post WWII Japan, only much much bigger. I would expect (predict) growing pains as China gains strength, but liberalism to come only slowly.

5. I don’t see them invading Taiwan. They risk starvation if the world denies them raw materials and shuts down their growing industry.

Thoughts??

Craig

1. China doesn’t “need” our economy any more than we “need” China. Both of our economies are mutually beneficial and would suffer if separated, but they certainly aren’t dependent on each other.

2. I’m not sure how oil is important in all of this… At least not in the sense of a cold war.

3. China hardly needs the US for technologies such as the internet and modern-day telecommunications.

4. It’s never in anyone’s benefit to participate in any war, be it hot or cold. I’m not sure why you think wage inflation is important in an international sense… but nice factoid.

5. They would probably invade Taiwan if Taiwan declared independence (which they probably won’t do). However, should Taiwan do such a foolish thing, China has clearly shown it would use military force to bitch slap them into their senses. As for the “raw materials” bit, I’m pretty sure there are plenty of countries that would supply China with its needs (not everyone pays allegiance to the US these days).

Craig, those are all really good points. That’s why an adversarial containment policy is so odd. On the other side, you have the Pentagon hawks and the defense industry - or the military industrial complex, if you want - using China as the next big enemy to justify the big ticket items, submarines, strategic bombers, ballistic missiles, etc. that are of little use in littoral warfare or counter-terrorism operations.

There are definitely two camps in the administration. It looks like Bush is currently leaning toward Soviet-era hawks right now. In fact, most of Bush’s foreign policy advisors are Soviet experts. I guess you go with what you know. It’s easier to frame China in Reagan-era anti-Soviet terms than to come up with a new doctrine.

I saw this morning where Negroponte will make spying on China a top CIA priority (whatever happened to bin Laden?). I also saw where the EU wants to make ending the embargo on China contingent on human rights improvements.

What’s the best way to catch ants: sugar, or vinegar?

American Pundit:

I think it’s sugar. I wouldn’t support containment, for the same reason I think the UN is a toothless tiger. Both our out of date. (I am for rechartering the UN to make it relevant). That is fighting yesterdays war. Very stupid. (Didn’t the French to that with the Maginot Line before WWII?).

With Human Rights, I would be for a dialogue. Through the eyes of the Chinese, we are a spoiled self-centered, self-indulgent society of cry babies. Since they are a very very old culture, they see us as “wrong” and their way as “right”. They want to be protected from our values, because they think our values are very repugnant.
I just don’t think the Chinese are in a position to listen to a lecture when they don’t respect what our culture stands for.

I think we have to start with respecting the Chinese culture where it is now. We also need to look at them as having an equal culture. We have our issues they have theirs.

You can help me here because I’m reaching a bit. It seems as though the chinese are trying to strike a balance between improving the quality of life for their people, and still being china. The leadership grew up with communism and knows the starvation and poverty it produces. But they want to hang on to the “down home” chinese values.

If I were their culture, (with it’s several thousand year history), I would see the west as hasty, and I would be in no hurry to become democratic. So what if it takes fifty years? In Chinese time that’s moving right along. That way they can sift threw the good and the bad and adopt what is strong and overlook the rest.

Craig

Zeek:

1. China doesn’t “need” our economy any more than we “need” China. Both of our economies are mutually beneficial and would suffer if separated, but they certainly aren’t dependent on each other.

I completely disagree with you. We are codependent. We need China like an alcoholic needs a liquor store!!!

2. I’m not sure how oil is important in all of this… At least not in the sense of a cold war.

Without it, China cannot feed it’s people. It is a fundamental difference between USSR and China. USSR exported oil and natural resourses to it’s satelite states. China imports oil. I don’t think they can do the cold war thing.

3. China hardly needs the US for technologies such as the internet and modern-day telecommunications.

It is very hard to unlearn knowledge in a culture. With the Internet the “whole world” is open to the Chinese and they know how the rest of the world is fairing. It is harder now a days for governments to control the media than during the cold war.

I just don’t see the cold war thing as happening. There might be conflict, but it seems to me it will be very different.

Craig

Craig, China’s situation is pretty simple. The leadership wants to transition to capitalism AND remain in control as a single party government.

It actually is possible to do with enlightened leaders. Singapore is certainly successful and it’s citizens are free to do whatever they want - as long as they don’t criticize the government. The Singaporean government also controls all the media, and they’re certainly monitoring what I’m posting right now, but it’s a sort of benevalent big brother. And the single party, the People’s Action Party, prides itself on being honest and transparent.

My experience with Singapore is probably the biggest influence on my thinking that Bush is wrong. Multi-party democracy isn’t the be-all-end-all of liberal government.

Anyhow, China’s Communist Party is trying to transition to a Singapore-like system. They’re cracking down on corruption and cronyism, and trying to attract foreign investment by becoming more transparent and respectful of international business/financial standards and intellectual property rights. But they’re not going to tolerate internal criticism, and they’re well aware of their status as a regional hegemon. China is by no means a liberal government yet, but they’re going that way in their own way.

AP

I don’t disagree with most of what you write, but I don’t see it as a problem.

Our relations with China are complex, nuanced and any other adjective you can think of to say complicated. There are various factions within the U.S. and within China trying to make their policies THE policies. Other countries in the region are trying to figure out where their best interests are. China is powerful, but not dominant in its region. While its position will improve, China will never come to dominate E. Asia the way that the USSR dominated E. Europe and the days of the Manichean super power rivalry are gone for the foreseeable future.

It is just a balancing act and the Bush Administration has done well at it so far. But what Bush does or doesn’t do is not always the determining factor. The Chinese have been over bellicose in recent times vis-à-vis Japan and Taiwan. If we were writing this blog about the China the way we do about the U.S., we would be pointing out this mistake, which is pushing the U.S. to take positions that are hurting China, and harming relations with Japan, a major investor. The Chinese rumbling about Taiwan also made it more difficult for the EU to lift the arms ban.

I only wish China could be more like Singapore. I am not sure that system is scalable to such a large country like China. A lot of things work well in small countries that can’t be transferred. You know better than I do, but my friends in Singapore tell me that people in power just know each other – personally. A lot of things are solved outside official channels. You can’t get to know a billion people personally. I respect what the Chinese seem to be trying to do, but I remain apprehensive about the outcome.

The Chinese trade deficit is a problem for them and us. Three things need to happen in the world soon. The U.S. needs to get its budget deficit under control. The Europeans and Japanese need to reform and stimulate their economies, so that they can take some of the growth pressure off the U.S. And the Chinese need to allow their currency to appreciate.

These things are hard to do, and the U.S. only controls one of them. Even in that case, the Administration does not have a free hand. I don’t offer solutions. I hope someone smarter can come up with some.

China will never come to dominate E. Asia…

Sure, I’m thinking of SE Asia where they’re already a big player and have a long history of hegemony. On the other hand, despite China’s current spat with Japan, they’re still Japan’s biggest trading partner, they have a big say in N Korea, and have working agreements with S Korea, Russia, and now India.

Manichean world order? Probably not. Complicated? Certainly.

we would be pointing out this mistake, which is pushing the U.S. to take positions that are hurting China

But Chinese sabre rattling doesn’t automatically mean we have to tighten the noose. That’s merely one of many choices Bush could have made.

It really comes down to this. The Bush administration sees China as a potential enemy. Dr. Rice essentially says a ring of watchful US allies will keep China’s potential excesses in check until democratic reformers overthrow the Chinese Communist Party.

Europe and most of Asia see China as a potential partner. They believe engagement and trade - globalization, really - will liberalize China even if Jeffersonian democracy doesn’t break out.

Craig,

“I completely disagree with you. We are codependent. We need China like an alcoholic needs a liquor store!!!”

… No, that is false. Perhaps we need China to support or massive trade deficits but I’m not seeing how they need us. Sure, we’re they’re biggest consumer, but they still have other sources of international trade and will not be completely crippled by the loss of American business.

“Without it, China cannot feed it’s people. It is a fundamental difference between USSR and China. USSR exported oil and natural resourses to it’s satelite states. China imports oil. I don’t think they can do the cold war thing.”

Yes, but the US has no power to deter China, so how does this help fuel a cold war? If China just relies on its allies it can just ignore the US.

” With the Internet the “whole world” is open to the Chinese and they know how the rest of the world is fairing. It is harder now a days for governments to control the media than during the cold war.”

Have you gone to any Chinese websites recently? There is no lost love for America and they certainly express no dependence on us. You seem to think they get all their broad-band cables and computers from the US.

Jack,

“China will never come to dominate E. Asia the way that the USSR dominated E. Europe and the days of the Manichean super power rivalry are gone for the foreseeable future.”

Certainly they aren’t as expansionist/imperialistic as the USSR or the US, but they are a powerful force in the region (one of the most).

AP

“Dr. Rice essentially says a ring of watchful US allies will keep China’s potential excesses in check until democratic reformers overthrow the Chinese Communist Party.”

That’s either because Rice is a liar or an idiot (possibly both). An idiot in the sense that China is Communist in name only, and practices far more capitalism than people seem to think. Or, perhaps it’s because she’s lying and she knows that if Japan can be pushed into a war with China it would solve the “China threat” while keeping America’s hands clean.

Zeek,
Japan couldn’t or would’t defend itself against China.
Leaving the nuclear option asside, China could defeat any nation on the planet by sheer numbers.
And they have the industry and the wherewithall to do it.
If they decide to pull their capital out of America, where does that leave us?
The greatest number of Chinese are not capitalists. Only the most well off are. The common folks want the same things most people want, food, health and shelter, and they are going to side with those that give it to them.

Zeek, I strongly suspect that any Chinese threat to Japan would suck in the US. And I’m pretty sure we could take ‘em, sheer numbers or not.

The common folks want the same things most people want, food, health and shelter, and they are going to side with those that give it to them.

That’s really astute, Rocky. When I was in Cambodia last year, my guide said the exact same thing. He attributed Cambodia’s civil war and the continuing political violence to that same phenomenon.

Certainly the Chinese leadership could set off a global economic bomb without suffering the way we would. As you point out, the majority of Chinese wouldn’t even notice. But there is a growing middle class and merchant class who would act as a governor on such an attempt. I hope we never have to find out which faction is stronger.

AP,
I spent time in Bejing and Dailin. Drank beer with the locals. I felt kind of bad, I was making in one day more than they made in a year.
(I bought all the beer).

Zeek:

… No, that is false. Perhaps we need China to support or massive trade deficits but I’m not seeing how they need us. Sure, we’re they’re biggest consumer, but they still have other sources of international trade and will not be completely crippled by the loss of American business.

We are China’s largest consumer of good right now. They wont be completely crippled but enough to not accomplish their goals.

… Yes, but the US has no power to deter China, so how does this help fuel a cold war? If China just relies on its allies it can just ignore the US..

They can’t just ignore the US anymore than we can “just ignore them”. What China does influences us greatly. The Chinese are responsible for a large amount of the high cost of natural resourses right now. When we fill up with gas, part of the issue is the rise in Chinese demand.

That is why I don’t see a cold war coming with China. Are we arguing on the same side of this issue? I am in agreement with this thread that is basically saying containment wont work, (and isn’t as necessary) because Russia of 1947 is an entirely different animal than China today.

If you look at my point on technology, I am trying to say that the Chinese can’t shut their contry down the way Russia did. Technology is too advanced around the world and outside info is more likely to come in. Basically the world is smaller.

Craig

Rocky,

“Japan couldn’t or would’t defend itself against China.”

AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH!!! WHEW! Thanks I needed a laugh. Ok, first off, you clearly don’t know any native Japanese people. Second, by economic and military numbers, Japan is slightly ahead of China.

“The greatest number of Chinese are not capitalists. Only the most well off are.”

The reason they are well off is BECAUSE they’re capitalists. However, as you said, most Chinese people are not that well off and can only afford to scratch by a living (much like many Americans).

AP,

“I strongly suspect that any Chinese threat to Japan would suck in the US”

Are you kidding me?!?!? A Chinese-Japan war is exactly the thing the US wants (without being involved). That way, the “China threat” gets dealt with, and the US can still remain a trading partner with China while the US keeps its hands clean.

(Note: When I say, “the US wants” I mean the neo-cons)

“The reason they are well off is BECAUSE they’re capitalists.”

Sorry Zeek,

Most of the well off people in China, were well off before capitalism. It was a virtual caste system that has been around for a long time.
I haven’t been to China for 8 years (except Hong Kong), but I would venture that it hasn’t changed much. Much of the wealth is still centered around Shanghi, and most of the people live in the countryside.
In 1996 the folks I worked with were making about $2.00 American per day, this was in the city of Dailin. I would imagine that those in the countryside made significantly less.

We should not underestimate China, but neither should we overestimate it.

Remember all the books and articles that predicted Japan would overtake the U.S. by the year 2000? And back in the 1950s and 1960s when Communists really thought the Soviet Union would overtake the West?

China’s growth has been truly impressive, but it has come at some costs to society and the local environment. It will not be sustainable at this rate. It is also true that China started from such a low base that it was relatively easy to build up. It was necessary only that the government not interfere too much.

China is running into a labor shortage. That’s right. There are plenty of people, but not so many skilled workers. Wages are rising and cheap labor is China’s main competitive advantage. It also suffers from infrastructure bottlenecks. Chinese diplomacy has made some serious errors of late re Japan, Taiwan, the U.S. and the EU.

Zeek

Why do you think it would be in U.S. interests for China and Japan to fight a war? That is truly old thinking. To believe that a war between two of our largest trading partners would be anything but disastrous for all involved is … I don’t know what. This is not a big game of risk and the world is not zero sum. We Americans have benefited both from the rise of Japan and China and we would be hurt by their decline, even if our RELATIVE position improved. This is not a game you can win.

Rocky

Logistics. China’s massive army can’t easily move even on land and it can’t cross any stretch of blue water ocean, especially if it is opposed. China also lacks the battlefield command and control technologies. That is, in fact, what dropping the EU arms embargo would give them.

Don’t get me wrong. China is a great potential power and managing the Chinese relationship is will be the biggest challenge for U.S. foreign policy in the next generation. But don’t count on current trends continuing.

What I think we are seeing today is a mirror image of the “yellow peril” fear. A century ago, Europeans and Americans worried that the Chinese were going to take over the world. They had great fears that China would push the world into a new dark age of Eastern despotism. They were mistaken. Now we have the same sort of idea, except with the twist that China will be the new techno powerhouse.

Fifty years from today, you will probably have four powers: China, India, the U.S. and the EU. Let’s hope they can get along peacefully. My guess (and you will never be able to catch me on this) is that the U.S. will be the most powerful and prosperous and India will be next in line.

Zeek,

I belive, that due to treaties dating back to WW2 that Japan is limited to defence forces.
If China attacked Japan (however unlikely that senario), America would have to come to Japan’s aid.
My real fear is Mr. Bush’s backing off from the American stance on Taiwan. Landing at the airport in Taipei, I was amazed to see the AA positions that surround the perimiter.
When I was in Dailin on mainland China, There were MIGs parked on the tarmac. These were older (I am uncertain of the model), but they were there none the less, and quite well preserved.
I was in Dailin working on a disco that was accross the street from the Chinese Naval Academy.

Rocky,

“Most of the well off people in China, were well off before capitalism.”

True, but I wasn’t talking about corrupt politicians and businessmen who leech off the system (because they exist in any form of society).

“If China attacked Japan (however unlikely that senario), America would have to come to Japan’s aid.”

Wrong, the US stands to gain nothing from such a maneuver and so we wouldn’t.

“My real fear is Mr. Bush’s backing off from the American stance on Taiwan.”

And what stance would that be?

Jack,

“Why do you think it would be in U.S. interests for China and Japan to fight a war? That is truly old thinking.”

But… I don’t think it would be in our interests for China and Japan to go to war… I think you got confused; I was saying that the neo-cons would like this to happen.

“To believe that a war between two of our largest trading partners would be anything but disastrous for all involved is … I don’t know what.”

I agree… And the same goes for all wars really…

“This is not a game you can win.”

The neo-cons would disagree.

Zeek

First, let me quibble with the definition of neo-con. It was originally used to describe mostly Jewish intellectuals who got fed up with left wing pabulum and turned to free markets. I have been involved with neo-cons since I read Irving Kristol’s book “Two Cheers for Capitalism” back in the 1970s and I am currently reading David Horowitz’s book on leftist illusions. I know a lot of neo-cons, including some fairly prominent ones.

I have never heard of anyone who believes that a war involving Japan is a good thing.

For research purposes, could you give me a list of people you consider neo-cons. The term has become something of a catchall. The only people who self identify as neo cons are people like Kristol (Irving not Bill) and Horowitz. I can start the list of people I think you might include. I think people like Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton and Victor Davis Hanson could fit. I don’t recall any of them advocating a war between China and Japan.

Jack,

It all depends on what you read I suppose. You read “Two Cheers for Capitalism” and I read “The China Threat,” “The Coming Conflict with China,” “Hegemon: China’s Plan to Dominate Asia and the World.”

“I think people like Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton and Victor Davis Hanson could fit. I don’t recall any of them advocating a war between China and Japan.”

You don’t always tell people what you’re thinking. Similarly, I wouldn’t expect Wolfowitz, Bolton, or any other neo-con politician to openly advocate war between China and Japan. That’s just political suicide.

I suppose this is one of those cases where my argument is based more upon logic than concrete fact. Rather like how I just assumed Bush was BSing about WMDs in Iraq. Again, I really couldn’t prove anything at the time, I could only offer my suspicions. I don’t really expect to make any converts with that little evidence; however, I still believe there are plenty of “neo-cons” that would be more than happy to see a China-Japan war.

I read “The Coming War with Japan” - the early 90’s version, not the 1924 Billy Mitchell version. ;)

Zeek, it’s always interesting to speculate, but no sane leader starts a war for no… Hmm… No sane leader would trust his nations fate to… Umm… War is always a gamble. Only an idiot would… Oh, never mind. Carry on. :)

Interesting discussion here, as always. I have some things to interject.
1st) Chinese culture is more capitalistic than American culture is. Their work ethic is as imbedded as any puritans. The difference lies in that the Communist government allows for individual and business wealth only to the point where the benefits to the party outweigh the risks of open markets.
For example, many Americans believe that the Tienamen square riots were a demand for democracy. The typical Chinese does not know what we mean by Democracy anymore than the typical American knows what they mean. The protests were against an inability to effect change on government corruption resulting from increasing problems related to out of control businesses. The end result was a crackdown on some unsavory labor practices and an increased understanding by the populace as to permitted protest limits. (Look at the current weekend only anti-Japan protests going on now)

2) The Chinese government controls the main computers for their domestic internet service. Sites unapproved of can’t be viewed by anyone using those computers (i.e. everyone in China) without some hacking knowledge. Even Google now doesn’t list unapproved sites on the search engine for that country. E-mail of pages is the bypass, but that’s obviously only to those within a personnal network.

3) China is the #1 buyer of US debt over the last few years. It’s the only way we can afford to buy their stuff, especially their garments. It’s a mutual dependency.

4) There’s no way there would be a Sino-Japanese war before a Sino-Taiwan war. I can’t even see why it’s in the discussion.

Anyway, that’s one persons 2 cents.

So, Zeek, you have never heard any legitimate Neocons advocate a war between China and Japan, but you think it is logical that they would think that. But I don’t suppose you actually know any Neocons. You are just building off the caricature created by their opponents.

As I mentioned, I know many Neocons and myself often fall into that camp. I supported and continue to support the war in Afghanistan. I supported and continue to support the war in Iraq. But the prospect of war between China and Japan has never occurred to me or anyone I know, or anyone I know about except as a nightmare scenario that would probably involve the U.S. in a worldwide conflagration.

To believe that there are serious advocates of such a position is the same as the belief in UFOs, ghosts or the theory of Atlantis. Some normal people like to flirt with the idea in the fantasy realm, but the only nut cases really believe it.

Zeek,

Try as I might I haven’t been able to find any numbers on the Japanese army, navy etc.

Somebody please correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t think the Japanese are allowed to have more than a defensive force by treaties signed after WW2. Thus the non-fighting continbent sent to Iraq.

And correct me If I am wrong, but I think that between China and Japan, China has more than 10 times the human resources to draw on.

As far as Taiwan, Clinton supported their right to a separate government apart from Beijing.

Rocky,

I’m pretty sure Japan’s navy is far superior to that of China. If you read some of the extremist Japanese websites, you’ll find that there are a number of Japanese who want to destroy China now, before their navy gets too strong.

“As far as Taiwan, Clinton supported their right to a separate government apart from Beijing.”

And if Clinton supported it, it must be good :P

I supported and continue to support the war in Afghanistan.

Dang! I must be a neo-con, too!

That was a fairly good argument weakened with that one line, Jack. Nobody - not even France - objected to the invasion and the ongoing UN/NATO efforts in Afghanistan.

Rocky, my understanding is that Japan has the second most powerful navy in the world (Russia being next). But they have no means to do force projection (aircraft carriers, fleets of landing craft, etc). It’s almost exclusively a defensive navy.

Interesting post from Thomas P. M. Barnett, author of “The Pentagon’s New Map”,

Watching the China-Japan tussle work itself out is really interesting. Everyone knows the outcome: China will get big, Japan will align its stars increasingly with Beijing in the region, and the US will have to go along with that.

But everyone is working against that outcome now in an almost knee-jerk fashion: US thinks it’s going to contain China (sucking up to India, which knows better, and pulling Japan on security issues with China like Taiwan), Japan thinks it’ll use US to balance Beijing (as if it isn’t already so deeply in bed with China economically to render that option fairly moot—as is the US, BTW), and China thinks it’s going to single-handedly adjust it’s tone with Japan without triggering a backlash (knowing full well how well Tokyo deals with such ultimatums).

…If the US is not taking a big, in-everyone’s-face role on this, then Rice is asleep at the wheel, and if anyone in the Pentagon or White House thinks this war of words is in our long-term interests, they should have their heads examined. I have heard nothing from the US in the press on any of this, and that’s not right. We’re missing in action on this and there’s no good reason for it.