China Containment Policy

The China Containment Policy is a current political belief that U.S. foreign policy strives to diminish the economic and political growth of the Peoples' Republic of China. The term, which primarily originates from political analysts in China, harks of the U.S. containment policy against the former Soviet Union during the Cold War.

Taken to its national conclusion, proponents of this realist theory claim the U.S. will or needs to seek a divided, ununified, and weak China to continue its hegemony in Asia. It is thought this shall be accomplished by establishing military, economic, and diplomatic ties to countries adjacent to China's borders. If so, American proponents of this policy espouse U.S. military activities in Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, South Korea, and Japan are only U.S. intentions to diminish the P.R.C. regional power. Additionally, U.S. efforts to improve relations with India and Vietnam would also be examples of the U.S. utilizing its economic influence to "box in" the P.R.C.

This version of containment should not be confused with the previous versions of the theory initially proposed by George Kennan in the 1940s to counter the ComIntern. This original version, which later expanded to include the P.R.C. after 1949, included shutting off all trade, cultural and educational exchanges, and political recognition to the P.R.C. starting with a formal denormalization of diplomatic relations. It may also be noted that the question of the legitimacy of the P.R.C. versus the Republic of China (aka Taiwan, or Formosa) as the rightful representatives of the Chinese people under international law and as recognized by the United Nations was within this context.

Justification

Chinese analysts put forward as justification for the policy deriving from some U.S. concerns of China's rapidly expanding military. Additionally, China feels the U.S. has indicted the P.R.C. for its ever-growing trade deficit with the United States (due to currency manipulation), its poor human rights record, and its aggressive stance on Taiwan reunification.

Chinese political commentators often portray this attitude as current U.S. foreign policy. This opinion is often reported in mainstream Chinese media outlets as a primary goal of U.S. policy.

Many of their arguments follow below:

From the 2006 U.S. National Security Strategy.

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’

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.

trategic alliances

US – India: 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. [http://www.newkerala.com/news2.php?action=fullnews&id=27489] [http://www.onlinenews.com.pk/details.php?id=94620] [http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006%5C03%5C18%5Cstory_18-3-2006_pg7_47]

US – Japan – Australia: Labeled by the Asian media as a ‘little NATO against China’ or the new ‘triple alliance’, or "the axis of democracy" by the Economist [http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8871366] . 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. [http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/HC18Ad01.html] [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/17/international/asia/17rice.html]

Japan - Australia: On March 15, 2007 both nations signed a strategic military partnership agreement, [Graeme Dobell, [http://www.abc.net.au/correspondents/content/2007/s1874269.htm Japan, Australia declare strategic partnership] , ABC News Online Australia, March 18, 2007] which analysts believe is aimed at alienating China. [Patrick Walters and Rowan Callick, [http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21390586-5001561,00.html India's inclusion in security pact risks alienating China] , The Australian, March 16, 2007. ]

Challenges

Australia: Australia's growing dependency on China’s market. Its mining industry is booming thanks to China. Ahead of the visit by Condoleezza Rice and her warning about China becoming a "negative force" Australian Foreign Affairs Minister, Alexander Downer, warned that Australia does not agree with a policy of containment of China. Australia has recently initiated an annual security dialogue with China.

India: although India‘s trade with China is growing at a pace that could overtake the US – Indian trade by the end of the decade. China’s economy is three times larger than India’s, which shows the enormous trade potential between the neighboring nations which are the two fastest growing economies of the world. India has more to lose by joining an anti-China front than staying out of it, as by the end of 2007 China will emerge as India’s largest trading partner. Bush’s visit to India is seen also as a desperate attempt to boost bilateral trade and keep some influence by offering India something that only US can provide, high nuclear technology. China is USA’s main trading partner while India ranks 24. [http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China_Business/HC15Cb06.html]

Japan: USA economy is 5 times larger than China’s however China has already overtaken the US as Japan’s largest trading partner. China gives imports from Japan preference and priority over the US which has been an important factor in the recovery of Japan's for a decade stagnant economy. An Asian foreign policy dove, Fukuda is like to be the next Prime Minister.

ee also

* Containment

References

External links

* [http://news.monstersandcritics.com/northamerica/article_1148048.php/Bush%60s_rules_for_China Bush's rules for China]
* [http://www.newkerala.com/news2.php?action=fullnews&id=27489 Nuclear deal only one aspect of India-US ties: envoy]
* [http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006%5C03%5C18%5Cstory_18-3-2006_pg7_47 ‘US-India N-deal should not threaten Pakistan, China’]
* [http://www.onlinenews.com.pk/details.php?id=94620 Nuclear deal no threat to China, Pak: Narayanan]
* [http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/HC18Ad01.html A 'little NATO' against China]
* [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/17/international/asia/17rice.html?_r=1&oref=slogin Rice and Australian Counterpart Differ About China]
* [http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/HD20Ad01.html Containing China: The US's real objective]