America’s Doomed China Strategy

The National Interest

May 26, 2016

Two developments in the past month indicate that Washington’s mixed policy of engagement and containment (or “congagement”) toward China has begun to tilt more toward containment. The first development was the visit of Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter to India in mid-April and the signing of a bilateral cooperation agreement on military logistics. The other episode is President Obama’s just-completed trip to Vietnam and the announced lifting of the long-standing arms embargo on that country. As usual, American officials insist that the marked change in U.S. policy toward Hanoi is not in any way directed against China. But such statements strain credulity, especially when viewed in the larger context of U.S. warships conducting “freedom of navigation” patrols in the South China Sea and bluntly reminding Beijing of America’s security obligations to the Philippines under a bilateral defense treaty.

The containment side of U.S. policy has gone from merely assembling some of the necessary components, to be activated at a later date if necessary (first gear), to the initial phase of activation (second gear). More emphasis is likely to be placed on China as a serious strategic competitor, if not an outright adversary. But developing any kind of a containment policy against China is almost certain to prove hopelessly difficult. Despite the sometimes inflammatory rhetoric coming from Donald Trump and some other China bashers, the bilateral economic relationship remains quite extensive and crucial. China is America’s second largest trading partner. In 2015, the United States exported $116 billion in goods to China while importing $482 billion. Disrupting that relationship would be extremely costly and painful for both countries.

That point underscores one key reason why reviving anything even faintly resembling the Cold War–era containment policy that worked against the Soviet Union is a hopeless quest. America’s economic relations with the USSR were minuscule, so there was little sacrifice on that front in taking a hardline stance against Moscow. That is clearly not the case today regarding America’s economic connections to China.

There is also the matter of assembling a reliable alliance against Beijing. Conducting a containment policy against the Soviet Union during the Cold War was feasible because (at least during the crucial formative stages) neither the United States nor its key allies had much of a political or economic relationship to lose with Moscow. The costs, therefore, of shunning Moscow were minimal. That is clearly not the case with China. Most of the East Asian countries, including close U.S. allies Japan and South Korea, already have extensive economic links with Beijing. Indeed, China is Japan’s largest trading partner, accounting for one-fifth of that country’s total trade. It would not be easy for those countries to jeopardize such stakes to support a confrontational, U.S.-led containment policy aimed at Beijing. Tokyo undoubtedly has concerns about China’s behavior in the East China Sea (and about overall Chinese ambitions), but it would still be a reluctant recruit in a hostile containment strategy.

Indeed, as time passed during the Cold War, even the containment strategy directed against the Soviet Union proved increasingly difficult for U.S. leaders. That was especially true after the early 1970s, when West Germany’s policy ofOstpolitik sought better relations with communist East Germany, and indirectly with Moscow and the rest of the Soviet bloc. As connections deepened between democratic Europe and the USSR, support for hard-line U.S. policies began to fade. That point became evident in the 1980s, when U.S. leaders attempted to persuade their European allies to reject the proposal for a natural gas pipeline from the Soviet Union to Western Europe, fearing that it would give Moscow an unhealthy degree of policy leverage. Much to Washington’s frustration, key European allies rejected the advice.

If the United States attempts to mobilize regional support for a containment policy against China, it will start out operating in an environment even less conducive than the policy environment regarding the Soviet Union in the 1980s. Washington’s courtship might be welcomed by very small countries, such as the Philippines, that are already on extremely bad terms with Beijing. Larger powers, though, are more likely to see what benefits they can entice and extract from Washington, without making firm commitments that would antagonize China and jeopardize their own important ties to that county.

There is a final reason why an overt containment policy against China would be a poor option for the United States. Several troublesome global or regional issues will be difficult to address without substantial input and cooperation from China. It is nearly impossible, for example, to imagine progress being made on the difficult and complex issue of North Korea’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs without China’s extensive involvement.

The United States needs to lower, not increase, its level of confrontation toward China. That also means restoring respect for the concept of spheres of influence. In attempting to preserve U.S. primacy in East Asia and the western Pacific, U.S. leaders are intruding into the South China Sea and other areas that logically matter far more to China than to America. Such a strategy is likely to result either in a humiliating U.S. retreat under pressure or a disastrous military collision. A containment strategy is a feeble attempt to evade that reality.

Ted Galen Carpenter is a senior fellow in defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute and a contributing editor at the National Interest. He is the author of ten books and more than six hundred articles on international affairs.



Image @repubblica.it

I would say this article is probably true as China trade with the whole world and China have invested heavily in Africa and Pakistan so that corridor is very hard for the US to shut.  The building of rail network running from China to Europe and the future network that would run through Thailand, Malaysia and into Singapore is another route.  

Image @orientalreview.org

It may be the fact that suddenly USA have become interested in Africa and have redeployed back into Libya. The sudden generosity of providing free weapons to some African nations is also another indicator.

US ‘Stirring up Trouble’ in South China Sea: HERE

Image @portphillippublishing.com.au

I doubt Vietnam, Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan or India for that matter would want a conflict with China. Vietnam and India share a common border with China so it is unwise to consider any conflict.  S. Korea have very good relations with China and Russia. 

India and the South Asian Neighbourhood: HERE

There seems to be a rush into SE Asia,  India look East as I perceive India tries to increase her influence as seen by the road linking Myanmar and Thailand soon to be opened.

Image @repubblica.it

See related post:

South China Sea Controversy: Beijing To Send Nuclear Weapons To Disputed Region Amid US Military Tensions

G7 agrees need strong message on South China Sea; China says don’t ‘hype’ – Reuters

Dire US Ignorance of China’s Advanced Strategic Nuclear Submarines – By  Author of Tiananmen’s Tremendous Achievements, freelance Chinese/English translator

China isn’t the only one building islands in the South China Sea

China Building Missiles to Strike Guam

Set red line for US to avoid military clash in S.China Sea

China Deploys YJ-62 Subsonic Anti-Ship Cruise Missile To South China Sea’s Woody Island

This interactive map of China’s power in the South China Sea is a wake-up call to us all

China sends surface-to-air missiles to contested island in provocative move

Conflicting parties in the SC Sea and Naval power comparison – Non US

Chinese Submarine Fires 2 Nuclear JL-2 Missiles off American Coastline near Oregon




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s