PLA General：U.S engaging in gunboat diplomacy
The United States will dispatch the aircraft carrier USS George Washington to the waters west of South Korea (the Yellow Sea) to participate in a series of U.S.-South Korean joint military drills, a spokesperson for the United States Department of Defense recently announced during a press conference. This is a 180-degree turn from the statements made by an official from the Pentagon in mid-July.
The Chinese government has reiterated that it firmly opposes the activities of foreign naval ships in the Yellow Sea and other offshore areas of China that affect China's security interests and urged relevant sides to pay serious attention to China's concerns and stance. However, the United States has insisted on sending aircraft carriers to the Yellow Sea to provoke China. What information has this transmitted? At least it shows that the foreign policy of the United States is still showing three features that have long been part of its global strategy.
The first is hegemony, under which the United States claims, "Since I am the dominant player in the world, I can go anywhere I want and others have no rights to interfere." The philosophical foundation of the American hegemonic mindset is the deep-rooted "manifest destiny" theory held by some Americans.
According to the theory, the American Nation is the most outstanding nation in the world. Its leadership in the world, which is bestowed by God, is undeniable. Therefore, Americans have the responsibility to handle world affairs and will appear wherever problems take place. Nevertheless, the results are usually the opposite – things become worse with the involvement of the United States.
The reason behind this is that they are convinced that the social system of the United States is the most advanced in the world. Therefore, they strive to sell their "democratic values" across the world, which sometimes means resorting to military action. They believe that the American nation is the most excellent, so they must "lead the world" and other nations have no choice but to follow them.
The United States will exercise its military power to punish the nations that do not follow its will. In their eyes, the security of other countries and nations is always put in the second position and even considered to be insignificant. They do not need to pay attention to security concerns raised by any other country.
The second is gunboat diplomacy. It can be summed up by the position that, "If you do not obey me, I will flex my muscles first. Then, if you do not behave better, I will teach you a lesson with my fists." The best example of U.S. gunboat diplomacy is the Naval Operations Concept 2010 approved by the U.S. president in May this year, which vividly described U.S. "maritime interests." According to the concept 2010, the U.S. naval forces will develop six core competencies: forward presence, deterrence, maritime security, sea control, power projection and humanitarian assistance.
What high-sounding language! First, the so-called forward presence means that the United States can send its gunboats to every corner of the world, tyrannize the weak and extend its security boundaries to others’ doorsteps. This way, the United States can even claim the Yellow Sea and the South China Sea is covered within its security boundary.
Second, the so-called deterrence is no different from bully tactics, namely that "if you do not obey me, I will punch you." Third, the so-called maritime security is to ensure the inviolability of U.S. gunboats. The United States only cares about its own safety, and it should not be expected to ever care about others' safety. Fourth, the so-called sea control applies the logic of "whoever controls critical sea-lanes controls the seas, and whoever controls the seas controls the world."
Fifth, the so-called power projection is obviously for war rather than peace. Sixth, the so-called humanitarian assistance is only for the Americans and U.S. allies, while others only receive brutal and rough treatment from the United States. This U.S. behavioral style shows that it is still holding on to the Cold War mentality and still implementing gunboat diplomacy, the philosophical foundation of which is the law of jungle, namely bullying the weak.
Ironically, the United States, which has a blind belief in its military force and "speaks" only through its gunboats, is at once embarrassingly trapped in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The third feature of U.S. foreign policy is unilateralism, namely, "No matter how many people it involves, I am superior to all others, and I can do whatever I like. Everything must bend to American interests and will." The philosophical foundation of American unilateralism is based on the zero-sum game and its basic principle is: what I obtain must be what others lose and vice versa, so what others obtain must be what I lose.
Therefore, the United States is never willing to communicate and consult with other countries, let alone think from others' point of views. Since Obama came into power, he has claimed to have broken clearly with former President Bush's unilateralist policies and pursued "smart power" diplomacy.
However, judging from the United States and South Korea's insistence on holding joint military drills around the waters of the Korean Peninsula, we see neither multilateral security cooperation nor the display of smart power. What we see is only unilateral confrontation and showing off of hard power.
The Chinese are peace-loving people, and China is now taking a peaceful development road different from when the imperialist powers rose. We do not want to be against any country, but we are not fearful if other countries ignore our solemn positions and core interests. A country must have the dignity and its army must have deterrence power.
China adheres to the principle "We will not attack unless we are attacked, and we must retaliate only if we are attacked," which is definitely not a joke to the Chinese people and the army. Doesn’t the United States proclaim itself to be the most democratic country? Then, they should know in the 21st century, they ought to learn to respect others and listen to the public opinions of other countries, using wisdom but not gunboats to solve problems.
By Major General Luo Yuan, deputy secretary general of the Society of China Military Sciences, translated by People's Daily Online
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90780/91343/7103900.html
i suggest you worried about getting opposition onto political stage and not stretch your political goal far beyond your shore.
Originally posted by Arapahoe:i suggest you worried about getting opposition onto political stage and not stretch your political goal far beyond your shore.
As long as U.S hegemony remains, I have to oppose them.
http://www.thelinkpaper.ca/?p=2209
Imperial follies
http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/stories/20100827271707300.htm
One man against the sole superpower on this planet!
RE: US Gunboat diplomacy, you'd think the Chinese should have gotten over it after 1842.
Is US practicing Gunboat diplomacy in Asia? yes say yes, no say no.
If I see diplomats travelling around in commercial airlines, I 'd say they are making peace.
If I see gunboats crusing outside other people's territories, I'd say that is gunboat diplomacy. Diplomats these days don't travel by boats, or carry guns.
Call it whatever you like but US naval power has been the bedrock of security and prosperity in Asia since the end of WWII.
China is the one that is attempting to change this status quo.
This attempt is most evident in the recent case of China asserting that control over the South China Sea is one of China's "core national interests", a position that is most certainly rejected by all ASEAN members who rely most of their trades thru this water.
Originally posted by sgdiehard:Is US practicing Gunboat diplomacy in Asia? yes say yes, no say no.
If I see diplomats travelling around in commercial airlines, I 'd say they are making peace.
. Diplomats these days don't travel by boats, or carry guns.
If I see gunboats crusing outside other people's territories, I'd say that is gunboat diplomacy.
You still look for the "gunboat" that boat is already sunken drown and salvaged and together with 46 SK service man. Thereafter is just chain reaction to the consequencs of the event.
So don't blame Uncle Sam for beefing up the S.K in self defence. Cause the Chinese did not Spank their "Son for being Naughty Boy".....
The chinese have only themselved to blame for other areas as well such as refused to stop business activities with Iran dispite UN Sanction.
No disagreement about the role of the US in the security of Asia, especially North Asia.
The fact to recognize is that there is greater peace in Asia now with China and Taiwan coming to term for growth and stability. The role of the 7th fleet to protect Taiwan has since become redundant. What is important to note is that such peace is not achieved through with the presence of the US aircraft carriers.
The fact is that china whoes population is a quarter of the world population, having taken over Japan as the world second largest economy, is requiring greater space in all area. There cannot be status quo!
With such a changing scenario, how can we work together, in bilateral relationship between individual countries, as a group such as ASEAN, to handle the differences? is gunboat diplomacy the way to go for peace and stability in the region?
Agree that Uncle Sam should help to defend SK against NK, but today, if there is going to be a Korean War, tyrant Kim will not be supported by China nor Russia. Think again if you think there is any real help in spanking China for not spanking the naughty boy.
Tell the French to stop dealing with Iran on oil !! Will uncle sam carry out any condemnation of Israel for attacking the arab territories, sanctioned by the UN? It is still fresh in everybody's mind that uncle sam led the UN to invade Iraq with the lie about WMD.
Want to be big brother, need to establish and maintain some credibility. Gunboat is out of date already.
The facts remain unchanged is that geographical China is crowded with neighbours. Unlike America neighbours with Canada and Mexico sandwich between 2 oceans.
For that reason you cannot put that on par just because China is "Big"
China own assertive in the claim in SCS only draw an reaction from ASEAN states of inviting Uncle Sam into the negociating table.....as quote...
China reacted angrily when U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton suggested at a meeting in Hanoi last month that countries should work through the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, or Asean, to resolve territorial disputes in the South China Sea, including those with China. Beijing was particularly irked by her offer to have Washington "facilitate" such initiatives.
My only take is that China does not have seperate diplomatic core from military to deal with their "economics expansion" while the PLN is most likely dictating a predatory policies in SCS. International community call it "Talk and Take" Policy.
Once again a reflection of why diplomatics policies and military policies are fudge. The statement regards to Singapore is small and China is big totally reflect ignorant of the notion of being in a UN member state where it is supposed to represent with equal diplomatics voice regards to international relation.
As long as U.S imperialism, quest for U.S global domination, global hegemony exists, it must be opposed.
The potential conflict between China and Taiwan continues to be one of the most likely flashpoint in Asia. Although the current Taiwan government is more China friendly than the previous one and thus the tension between China and Taiwan has eased somewhat, the most critical issue of unification still remain unresolved. I remeber reading a Straits Time's article just 2 weeks ago about a poll recently conducted by the Taiwan government in Taiwan showing 67% of Taiwanese want 'eventual independence' from China. The result is a surprising increase of 5% from the last poll when this administration took power 2 years ago. So to imply the detente we see now between the 2 sides as the end of this China-Taiwan saga may be a little premature. Also taking into account the fact that the current China friendly government is very likely to lose the next 2 major elections (low approval rating between 25-40%), I think the cross-straits situtation is likely to remain eventful.
Originally posted by TRA1:The potential conflict between China and Taiwan continues to be one of the most likely flashpoint in Asia. Although the current Taiwan government is more China friendly than the previous one and thus the tension between China and Taiwan has eased somewhat, the most critical issue of unification still remain unresolved. I remeber reading a Straits Time's article just 2 weeks ago about a poll recently conducted by the Taiwan government in Taiwan showing 67% of Taiwanese want 'eventual independence' from China. The result is a surprising increase of 5% from the last poll when this administration took power 2 years ago. So to imply the detente we see now between the 2 sides as the end of this China-Taiwan saga may be a little premature. Also taking into account the fact that the current China friendly government is very likely to lose the next 2 major elections (low approval rating between 25-40%), I think the cross-straits situtation is likely to remain eventful.
U.S also likes it that way, to see China and Taiwan at odds with each other.
I think China may have made a huge strategic mistake in showing their hands on the South China Sea and Spartly issue. The US is really milking every opportunity that arise from this Chinese political and diplomatic blunder. Vietnam government is the latest to teamed up with the US to counter Chinese ambition by showcasing the port call of the USS George Washington in Vn. The Chinese have really brought this upon themselves.
pot, meet kettle...
Originally posted by the Bear:pot, meet kettle...
it depend on what you want to heat it up?
Boil water use kettle
Slow cook meat stew you use a Pot.
Originally posted by TRA1:Call it whatever you like but US naval power has been the bedrock of security and prosperity in Asia since the end of WWII.
China is the one that is attempting to change this status quo.
This attempt is most evident in the recent case of China asserting that control over the South China Sea is one of China's "core national interests", a position that is most certainly rejected by all ASEAN members who rely most of their trades thru this water.
1. What's the status quo? some 60 years ago, china is nowhere in any world economic or power influence domains . and within that period china has risen from one of no name in western dominated world then to one of the giant just next to US now. If this is the status quo you refer or prefer, sorry, that has long been broken.
2. about the sealane you are talking, not only Asean relays most of trade thro it, but also China, and it’s well known, China’s trade volume makes the bulk of the traffic going through the waterway, by volume, you are not the biggest stakeholder. Furthermore, most of Asean’s trade going thro that SLOC is linked to China, Sino-Asean FTA will make the SLOC virtual to every stakeholder of the intra-trading partners within Sino-asean FTA. It's not a I'm in you are out situation you put in your portrait.
Originally posted by TRA1:The potential conflict between China and Taiwan continues to be one of the most likely flashpoint in Asia. Although the current Taiwan government is more China friendly than the previous one and thus the tension between China and Taiwan has eased somewhat, the most critical issue of unification still remain unresolved. I remeber reading a Straits Time's article just 2 weeks ago about a poll recently conducted by the Taiwan government in Taiwan showing 67% of Taiwanese want 'eventual independence' from China. The result is a surprising increase of 5% from the last poll when this administration took power 2 years ago. So to imply the detente we see now between the 2 sides as the end of this China-Taiwan saga may be a little premature. Also taking into account the fact that the current China friendly government is very likely to lose the next 2 major elections (low approval rating between 25-40%), I think the cross-straits situtation is likely to remain eventful.
The fact is Sino-Us has mutually made consensuses on TW’s status quo, each other well knows the bottomline, Why TW’s Chen SB got lost is he tried too far to touch the redline. Now the sort of cross strait FTA between mainland and TW will further reduce the tension and China can be more freehanded to deal things elsewhere.
Originally posted by TRA1:I think China may have made a huge strategic mistake in showing their hands on the South China Sea and Spartly issue. The US is really milking every opportunity that arise from this Chinese political and diplomatic blunder. Vietnam government is the latest to teamed up with the US to counter Chinese ambition by showcasing the port call of the USS George Washington in Vn. The Chinese have really brought this upon themselves.
So obviously you just raise which color flag solely on your own preference, if you judge China lost one viet friend, so the same judgment can see US also lost one traditional friend as well? :
Manila says US not needed in South China Sea row(AFP) 1 day ago
MANILA ?The Philippines said Monday that Southeast Asian nations did not need US help in solving territorial disputes with China over the potentially resource-rich South China Sea.
Foreign Secretary Alberto Romulo told reporters that negotiations should be strictly between the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and China, without the United States or any other party.
Asked if he supported US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's statement last month hinting at greater US involvement in the South China Sea dispute, Romulo said: "No".
"It's ASEAN and China. Can I make myself clear? It's ASEAN and China. Is that clear enough?" Romulo told reporters.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hoOYtZyAGVIZe-JcqZ42nTScZl5g
Even Philippine can see the US is just to come in in the sake of stirring things up by old tricks of selling China threats. Especially in an era its regional influence diminishing day by day with China’s rising. If it can’t compensate China’s influence dollar by dollar, obviously it need try sth else.
South China Sea used to be the playground of the US navy. Not anymore.
In the past, it doesn't matter who and how many lay claim to the spratlys, for they have not the capability nor the power to develop or control the place. Uncle sam had to be called in, and he takes all, with whoever he chose to support. Not anymore with china coming into the picture.
It is a legitimate concern that the PLA is not very diplomatic, but it is too far fetch to think that the PLA would act independently of the diplomats in the chinese government. But when you send in an aircraft carrier, who do you expect to me?
China and Taiwan is not likely to be a flash point for conflict anymore. No ROC people want to be PRC, no more than Singaporean chinese wanting to become chinese citizens. But with direct flights, mainland tourists, the signing of ECFA, and even the talk of FTA with Singapore, the people in Taiwan are not very eager to talk about political unity or independent. No taiwanese want to be back to the ah bian's era, no more than any mainland chinese want to be back to mao's era.
The world has changed, more so in Asia. The rise of China and India is certain to tilt the power balance in the region, probably at the expense of uncle sam only. Who would want a weaker china? who would benefit from a conflict in asia? do we really think uncle sam has no economic interest but just the kind heart to protect the people in asia, when he send in the aircraft carrier?
It is time to leave your gun at home, learn chinese and indian, Have Gun Will Travel is a very very very old movie, or TV program.
If "Have Gun Will Travel" is a very very old movie, then why is China building up its ballistic missile capabilities and naval power projection capabilities with such urgency? Why does it need an aircraft carrier so badly?
Fact is, guns are still necessary to impose policy on others. ASEAN isn't some shining example of peace and prosperity through multilateral institutions either. Guess what? Thailand and Cambodia are still trading bullets over some lousy border temple. For what? When China and Vietnam were disputing over the Paracels, guess what they brought? A company of marines and a couple of frigates. Wake up, smell the coffee and leave idealism back in bed. Hard power is here to stay.
I'm not saying that hard power should be the only means to conflict resolution. Everyone should seek negotiations and compromise. But if the guy you are negotiating with has guns and you don't, chances he's not gonna be interested to talk.
The SLOCs in South East Asia are vital for the countries here, China and the U.S. Don't forget the US trades a LOT with the countries here as well. Hence, ALL parties have interest in the peace and stability of the region.
Originally posted by Shotgun:If "Have Gun Will Travel" is a very very old movie, then why is China building up its ballistic missile capabilities and naval power projection capabilities with such urgency? Why does it need an aircraft carrier so badly?
Fact is, guns are still necessary to impose policy on others. ASEAN isn't some shining example of peace and prosperity through multilateral institutions either. Guess what? Thailand and Cambodia are still trading bullets over some lousy border temple. For what? When China and Vietnam were disputing over the Paracels, guess what they brought? A company of marines and a couple of frigates. Wake up, smell the coffee and leave idealism back in bed. Hard power is here to stay.
I'm not saying that hard power should be the only means to conflict resolution. Everyone should seek negotiations and compromise. But if the guy you are negotiating with has guns and you don't, chances he's not gonna be interested to talk.
The SLOCs in South East Asia are vital for the countries here, China and the U.S. Don't forget the US trades a LOT with the countries here as well. Hence, ALL parties have interest in the peace and stability of the region.
You think a company of marine and frigate can balance the power between Vietnam and China? or China can hope to balance its naval power with the US with an aircraft carrier?
If it is idealism to believe in diplomatic negotiation to achieve peace and stability, it is naivety to think that guns are still effective in ensuring peace and stability, of course, unless if you are dealing with the north korea. Even then, you think mr. kim is really worried about the american aircraft carrier? think again.