2001:5b0:4fd3:e5c8:8180:f384:4990:d016 (talk) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
98.221.136.220 (talk) outdated sentence. The US does have a containment policy towards China Tag: references removed |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[File:Geographic Boundaries of the First and Second Island Chains.png|thumb|right|The First and Second island chains in America's [[Island Chain Strategy]], studied by Chinese military strategists to avoid encirclement]] |
[[File:Geographic Boundaries of the First and Second Island Chains.png|thumb|right|The First and Second island chains in America's [[Island Chain Strategy]], studied by Chinese military strategists to avoid encirclement]] |
||
The '''China containment policy''' is a political term referring to the goal of [[U.S. foreign policy]] in the past or present to diminish [[China's peaceful rise|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 '''China containment policy''' is a political term referring to the goal of [[U.S. foreign policy]] in the past or present to diminish [[China's peaceful rise|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, [[Balkanization|divided]] China to continue its [[hegemony]] in Asia. This multifaceted strategy 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, and the utilization of tariffs, sanctions and [[lawfare]]. The presence of American military in Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan, Philippines;<ref>{{cite news|last=Lam|first=Willy|title=China opposes U.S. presence in Central Asia|newspaper=[[China Daily]]|publisher=[[CNN]]|date=22 April 2002|url=http://articles.cnn.com/2002-04-22/world/china.iran_1_jiang-leadership-vice-premier-qian-qichen-beijing?_s=PM:asiapcf|accessdate=7 March 2013}}</ref> recently strengthened ties with [[South Korea]]<ref name="clumsy">{{cite web|last= Carpenter|first=Ted|title=Washington’s Clumsy China Containment Policy|publisher=[[The National Interest]]|date=30 November 2011|url=http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/washington%E2%80%99s-clumsy-china-containment-policy-6202|accessdate=7 March 2013}}</ref> and [[Japan]];<ref>{{cite web|last=Jinan|first=Wu|title=Containment of China Is Abe’s Top Target|publisher=China-United States Exchange Foundation|date=25 January 2013|url=http://www.chinausfocus.com/foreign-policy/containment-of-china-is-abes-top-target/|accessdate=7 March 2013}}</ref> efforts to improve relations with [[India–United States relations|India]]<ref>{{cite news|title=Will India join strategic containment of China?|newspaper=[[People's Daily]]|date=22 January 2013|url=http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90883/8102701.html|accessdate=7 March 2013}}</ref> and [[United States–Vietnam relations|Vietnam]];<ref name="clumsy" /> and the Obama administration's 2012 ''[[East Asian foreign policy of the Barack Obama administration|Pivot to Asia Strategy]]'' for increased American involvement in the Pacific have been pointed to as evidence of a current containment policy. The United States had formerly claimed it had no China containment policy and that they "want China to succeed and prosper."<ref>{{cite news|last=Daozu|first=Bao|title=US denies China 'containment'|newspaper=[[China Daily]]|date=11 November 2010|url=http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2010-11/11/content_11531103.htm|accessdate=7 March 2013}}</ref> The US has made efforts to contain China in the past however through military actions undertaken in the [[Vietnam War]] as evidenced in the leaked [[Pentagon Papers]]. President [[Richard Nixon]]’s [[Richard Nixon's 1972 visit to China|China rapprochement]] signaled a temporary shift in focus to gain leverage in containing the [[Soviet Union]]. That position changed in 2019 when the US State Department Director of Policy Planning, [[Kiron Skinner]] revealed details of a study detailing a containment strategy for China that is said to be influenced by the book ''[[Clash of Civilizations]]'' by Samuel Huntington. |
The theory asserts that the United States needs a weak, [[Balkanization|divided]] China to continue its [[hegemony]] in Asia. This multifaceted strategy 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, and the utilization of tariffs, sanctions and [[lawfare]]. The presence of American military in Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan, Philippines;<ref>{{cite news|last=Lam|first=Willy|title=China opposes U.S. presence in Central Asia|newspaper=[[China Daily]]|publisher=[[CNN]]|date=22 April 2002|url=http://articles.cnn.com/2002-04-22/world/china.iran_1_jiang-leadership-vice-premier-qian-qichen-beijing?_s=PM:asiapcf|accessdate=7 March 2013}}</ref> recently strengthened ties with [[South Korea]]<ref name="clumsy">{{cite web|last= Carpenter|first=Ted|title=Washington’s Clumsy China Containment Policy|publisher=[[The National Interest]]|date=30 November 2011|url=http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/washington%E2%80%99s-clumsy-china-containment-policy-6202|accessdate=7 March 2013}}</ref> and [[Japan]];<ref>{{cite web|last=Jinan|first=Wu|title=Containment of China Is Abe’s Top Target|publisher=China-United States Exchange Foundation|date=25 January 2013|url=http://www.chinausfocus.com/foreign-policy/containment-of-china-is-abes-top-target/|accessdate=7 March 2013}}</ref> efforts to improve relations with [[India–United States relations|India]]<ref>{{cite news|title=Will India join strategic containment of China?|newspaper=[[People's Daily]]|date=22 January 2013|url=http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90883/8102701.html|accessdate=7 March 2013}}</ref> and [[United States–Vietnam relations|Vietnam]];<ref name="clumsy" /> and the Obama administration's 2012 ''[[East Asian foreign policy of the Barack Obama administration|Pivot to Asia Strategy]]'' for increased American involvement in the Pacific have been pointed to as evidence of a current containment policy. The United States had formerly claimed it had no China containment policy and that they "want China to succeed and prosper."<ref>{{cite news|last=Daozu|first=Bao|title=US denies China 'containment'|newspaper=[[China Daily]]|date=11 November 2010|url=http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2010-11/11/content_11531103.htm|accessdate=7 March 2013}}</ref> The US has made efforts to contain China in the past however through military actions undertaken in the [[Vietnam War]] as evidenced in the leaked [[Pentagon Papers]]. President [[Richard Nixon]]’s [[Richard Nixon's 1972 visit to China|China rapprochement]] signaled a temporary shift in focus to gain leverage in containing the [[Soviet Union]]. That position changed in 2019 when the US State Department Director of Policy Planning, [[Kiron Skinner]] revealed details of a study detailing a containment strategy for China that is said to be influenced by the book ''[[Clash of Civilizations]]'' by Samuel Huntington. |
Revision as of 01:26, 31 October 2019
The China containment policy is a political term referring to the goal of U.S. foreign policy in the past or present 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 multifaceted strategy 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, and the utilization of tariffs, sanctions and lawfare. The presence of American military in Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan, Philippines;[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 current containment policy. The United States had formerly claimed it had no China containment policy and that they "want China to succeed and prosper."[5] The US has made efforts to contain China in the past however through military actions undertaken in the Vietnam War as evidenced in the leaked Pentagon Papers. President Richard Nixon’s China rapprochement signaled a temporary shift in focus to gain leverage in containing the Soviet Union. That position changed in 2019 when the US State Department Director of Policy Planning, Kiron Skinner revealed details of a study detailing a containment strategy for China that is said to be influenced by the book Clash of Civilizations by Samuel Huntington.
Justifications
Cold War era
During the Cold War the United States tried to prevent the domino theory spreading of communism and thwart communist countries including that of the PRC. Revelations about the overt and ulterior motives behind the US intervention in Vietnam and the covert widening of combat operations to nearby Cambodia and Laos was leaked in the Pentagon Papers by Daniel Ellsberg in 1971.[6]
Although President Lyndon B. Johnson stated that the aim of the Vietnam War was to secure an "independent, non-Communist South Vietnam", a January 1965 memorandum by Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara stated that an underlying justification was "not to help a friend, but to contain China".[7][8]
McNamara accused China of harboring imperial aspirations like those of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. According to McNamara, the Chinese were conspiring to "organize all of Asia" against the United States.[9]
As laid out by U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, the Chinese containment policy of the United States was a long-run strategic effort to surround Beijing with the USSR, its satellite states, as well as:
a) The Japan–Korea front,
b) The India–Pakistan front, and
c) The Southeast Asia front
Post Cold War
In more contemporary times after the Nixon rapprochement and collapse of the USSR, the US and China enjoyed a period of closer economic ties and outwardly warmer relations.
The US 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review Report stated 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."[10] 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.[11] The policy assumes that measures should be taken against China to prevent it from seeking hegemony in the Asia-Pacific region and/or worldwide.[12]
The United States’ political leadership began to openly embrace containment policies in 2011, starting with President Barack Obama’s “pivot” toward Asia, which was supposed to involve a winding down of the War in Iraq and withdrawal of troops and military assets in the Middle East and Persian Gulf region and redeploying them in the Asia-Pacific; the Chinese leadership were keen to this “pivot” as a new Cold War era containment strategy and attempted to open a dialogue regarding the US concerns about the South China Sea but they were rebuffed.[13] 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.[14][15][16][17] 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.[18]
Formalization and implementation
President Trump and his administration have revealed details about a long term strategy in dealing with the rise of China. A study on China produced by a small working group within the US State Department led by Kiron Skinner reportedly envisions a world of unavoidable and aggressive great power competition and a “clash of civilizations”.[19][20] The study was informally called “Letter X” in reference to the X Article that advocated for a containment strategy for the Soviet Union.[20] In a speech at the Future Security Forum on April 29, 2019, Skinner, the Director of Policy Planning, characterized the Cold War as “a huge fight within the Western family” and due to that shared heritage and value-system, breakthroughs could be made; on China however, she argued there can be no accommodation or cooperation because it is “...a fight with a really different civilization and a different ideology” and “it’s the first time that we will have a great-power competitor that is not Caucasian.”[19] To what extent this controversial and much criticized viewing of foreign policy in a racialized lens will be carried out in practice as official policy within the US State Department is yet to be seen. Trump has repeatedly spoken publicly about thawing relations with Russia and has reportedly made overtures with Russian officials in an attempt to recruit Russia as a strategic foil to help contain China.[21]
Military strategy
The United States’ Indo-Pacific strategy has broadly been to use the surrounding democracies around China to blunt its influence. This includes strengthening the bonds between South Korea and Japan[22] as well as trying to get India, another large developing country to help with their efforts.[23] Additionally, with the US withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty with Russia (in part because China wasn’t a party to it), the US has reportedly wanted to find a host in the Asia-Pacific region to point the previously banned weapons at China.[24] In addition to soft power diplomacy within the region, the US is physically surrounding China with military bases in the event of any conflict.[25] The United States has developed over 400 military bases in the Asia Pacific equipped with warships, nukes, and nuclear-capable bombers as a deterrent in a strategy similar to that of the Cold War.[26]
Economic strategy
With China entering the World Trade Organization in 2001 with approval from the US, China and the world economy benefited from globalization and the access to new markets and the increased trade that resulted. Despite this, some in the United States lament letting China in the WTO because part of the motivation to do so, the political liberalization of the PRC’s government along the lines of the Washington Consensus never materialized. The US hoped economic liberalization would eventually lead to political liberalization to a government more akin to the then recently repatriated Hong Kong Special Administrative Region under One country, two systems.[27]
Trans Pacific Partnership
In part, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), geopolitically was thought by some to likely bring China's neighbours closer to the United States and reduce its economic leverage and dependence on Chinese trade.[28][29][30][31][32][33][34] If ratified, the TPP would have strengthened American influence on future rules for the global economy. US Secretary of Defense Ash Carter claimed the passage of the TPP to be as valuable to the United States as the creation of another aircraft carrier.[35] President Obama has argued "if we don't pass this agreement—if America doesn't write those rules—then countries like China will".[36]
Trade War
President Donald Trump formally withdrew the United States from the Trans Pacific Partnership in 2017. In what would become the China–United States trade war, President Donald Trump in 2018 began setting tariffs and other trade barriers on China with the goal of forcing it to make changes to what the U.S. says are "unfair trade practices".[37] The US says those trade practices and their effects are the growing trade deficit, the theft of intellectual property, and the forced transfer of American technology to China.[38] Some see hypocrisy in this characterization and instead posit that the allegations are exaggerated and China is pursuing economic development much in the same way many other modern industrialized economies have before it, except in a world where the rules of the global free trade order, developed, governed, and backed by the US and other developed western multilateral institutions (World Bank, International Monetary Fund, World Trade Organization), favors already developed countries, making development difficult or inimitable.[39] It should be noted that the Reagan administration and US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and Trump as a private citizen made identical claims in the 1980s when Japan was undergoing it’s economic miracle which led Japan to signing the Plaza Accord.[40] Like the TPP, it has been argued that the trade war is simply a more direct attempt to stifle China's development and is indicative of a shift in the US public perception of China as a "rival nation to be contained and beaten" among the two major political parties in Congress, the general public and even the business sector.[41] It has been argued however that employing the Cold War playbook for the seemingly destined to fail Soviet Union, a state-run and largely closed economy will not work in the case of China because of its sheer size, growing wealth, and vibrant economy.[42] To halt development progress, particularly the Made in China 2025 plan, the US has responded by making it harder for Chinese tech companies from obtaining US technologies or investing in or acquiring US tech companies, and even attempting to stifle specific companies, namely Huawei and ZTE from doing business domestically and abroad allegedly due to unspecified national security risks.[43]
Belt and Road Initiative
Another high profile dispute among the US and the PRC on the international stage is the United States alarm about China’s growing geopolitical footprint in soft power diplomacy and international finance and trade. Particularly, this surrounds China’s Belt and Road Initiative (formerly One Belt, One Road) which the Trump administration in particular as well as those in western media have labeled the initiative as “aggressive” “debt trap diplomacy” and point to instances of defaults and asset forfeiture as evidence of the PRC having hegemonic ambitions.[44][45]
Where others in the Anglosphere see malice and deceit in the BRI, others, while admitting it is not altruistic in nature, is peacefully pursuing economic interests and mutually beneficial trade ties for the procurement of resources and market access for its export-driven economy. In this perspective, China is utilizing and selling the expertise it has gained in poverty alleviation and infrastructure building used in its own journey to modernization to other developing countries.[46][47] Additionally, a study conducted by the Rhodium Group had found only one case of asset seizure, the oft-cited Hambantota port in Sri Lanka and the PRC is more likely to restructure or write-off the debt.[48]
The BRI has been a well received and long awaited alternative to developing countries that the US and other western development banks have long neglected due to either slow investment returns or the imposition of what some recipient governments would see as onerous demands regarding political liberalization, transparency, and human rights. Proponents of this line of thought dismiss claims of “debt trap diplomacy” as hypocritical and is propagandizing the initiative to disrupt the economic interests and peaceful rise of the PRC on the world stage.[49]
Strategic alliances
US–India
It is assumed that it was established or reconfirmed during President George W. Bush’s visit to India in March 2006. The media speculated about India–United States relations having the US use India to contain China. Indian officials publicly denied the claims.[50][51]
US–Japan–Australia
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visited Australia in March 2006 for the "trilateral security forum" with the Japanese foreign minister Taro Aso and his Australian counterpart Alexander Downer.[52][53] (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.[54]
Japan–Australia
(See Australia–Japan relations.) On March 15, 2007, both nations signed a strategic military partnership agreement,[55] which analysts[quantify] believe is aimed at alienating China.[56]
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.[57]
Japan–Australia–India
The three nations held their first trilateral meeting in June 2015.[58]
US– Taiwan
Although the United States recognized the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US maintains de facto diplomatic relations and is bound to it by the Taiwan Relations Act, which ambiguously states, “the United States will make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capabilities".
The recent decade has seen an increasing frequency of US arms sales to Taiwan alongside expanding commercial ties. On December 16, 2015, the Obama administration announced a deal to sell $1.83 billion worth of arms to the Armed Forces of Taiwan, a year and eight months after U.S. Congress passed the Taiwan Relations Act Affirmation and Naval Vessel Transfer Act of 2014 to allow the sale of Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates to Taiwan. The deal would include the sale of two decommissioned U.S. Navy frigates, anti-tank missiles, Assault Amphibious Vehicles, and FIM-92 Stinger surface-to-air missiles, amid the territorial disputes in the South China Sea. A new $250 million compound for the American Institute in Taiwan was unveiled in June 2018, accompanied by a "low-key" American delegation. The Chinese authorities denounced this action as violation of the "one China" policy statement and demanded the USA stop all relations with Taiwan without intercession of China. In 2019, the US approved the sale of 108 M1A2 Abrams tanks and 250 Stinger missiles for $2.2 billion and 66 F-16V fighter jets for $8 million. With such a large sale, China vowed to sanction any companies involved in the transactions.[59]
US–Philippines
The relationship between the United States and the Philippines has historically been strong and has been described as a Special Relationship. The 1951 mutual-defense treaty was reaffirmed with the November 2011 Manila Declaration.
Under President Rodrigo Duterte, the Philippines has cultivated closer ties to China and has tried to compartmentalize the South China Sea territorial issues from the broader relationship. In a speech in July of 2019, President Duterte claimed that the United States has been trying to use the Philippines as “bait” to ignite regional conflict and confrontation with China regarding incidents in the South China Sea, “egging“ him to take military action against China and pledging US support through the mutual defense obligations. To this idea he sarcastically said “if America wants China to leave, and I can't make them...I want the whole 7th Fleet of the armed forces of the United States of America there...when they enter the South China Sea, I will enter.” He added, “what do you think Filipinos are, earthworms?...now, I say, you bring your planes, your boats to South China Sea. Fire the first shot, and we are just here behind you. Go ahead, let's fight."[60]
US–South Korea
The US continues to host military bases in South Korea. The Chinese believe the deployment of the US made Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile system on the peninsula is not for the stated purpose of protecting against a nuclear armed North Korea, but to degrade the PLA Rocket Force from carrying out a nuclear second strike in the event of a war with the United States.[61] South Korea’s decision to deploy the system led to a significant deterioration in China–South Korea relations
Challenges
Australia
Australia has a growing dependency on China’s market. Its mining industry is booming owing to Chinese demand.[62] During the second Bush Administration, ahead of the visit by Condoleezza Rice and her warning about China becoming a "negative force"[63] the Australian Foreign Affairs Minister, Alexander Downer, warned that Australia does not agree with a policy of containment of China.[64] Rice clarified that the U.S. is not advocating a containment policy.
India
India is a founding member of the Non Aligned Movement, a group of mostly developing states that are not formally aligned with or against any major power bloc which has among its five pillars “mutual non-aggression”, “mutual non-interference in domestic affairs, and “peaceful co-existence”.
China is India's largest trading partner.[65] 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 important nuclear technology. China is the US's fifth-largest trading partner in terms of exports, but India ranks only twenty-fourth.[66]
Japan
China has overtaken the U.S. as Japan’s largest trading partner.[67]
See also
- China-United States relations
- America's Pivot to Asia Strategy
- Geostrategy in Central Asia
- Quadrilateral Security Dialogue
- Second Cold War
- AirSea Battle
- Blue Team (U.S. politics)
- Philippines-United States relations
- India-United States relations
- Japan-United States relations
References
- ^ Lam, Willy (22 April 2002). "China opposes U.S. presence in Central Asia". China Daily. CNN. Retrieved 7 March 2013.
- ^ a b Carpenter, Ted (30 November 2011). "Washington's Clumsy China Containment Policy". The National Interest. Retrieved 7 March 2013.
- ^ Jinan, Wu (25 January 2013). "Containment of China Is Abe's Top Target". China-United States Exchange Foundation. Retrieved 7 March 2013.
- ^ "Will India join strategic containment of China?". People's Daily. 22 January 2013. Retrieved 7 March 2013.
- ^ Daozu, Bao (11 November 2010). "US denies China 'containment'". China Daily. Retrieved 7 March 2013.
- ^ Frum, David (2000). How We Got Here: The '70s. New York, New York: Basic Books. p. 43. ISBN 978-0-465-04195-4.
- ^ "COVER STORY: Pentagon Papers: The Secret War". CNN. June 28, 1971. Retrieved October 26, 2013.
- ^ "The Nation: Pentagon Papers: The Secret War". Time. June 28, 1971. Retrieved 2018-11-04.
- ^ Robert McNamara (November 3, 1965). "Draft Memorandum From Secretary of Defense McNamara to President Johnson". Office of the Historian.
- ^ Hawkins, William R (June 2, 2007). The dangers in talking to China. Asia Times Online.
- ^ Bush, George (March 2006). The National Security Strategy of the United States of America. The White House.
- ^ Feng, Huiyun (2007). Chinese strategic culture and foreign policy decision-making: Confucianism, leadership and war. Routledge. p.81. ISBN 978-0-415-41815-7.
- ^ Goodman, Melvin (June 13, 2019). "The Twin Dangers of Exceptionalism and Mindless Bi-Partisanship". CounterPunch. Retrieved September 1, 2019.
- ^ Blumenthal, Daniel (15 April 2011). "Riding a tiger: China's resurging foreign policy aggression". Foreign Policy. Retrieved 7 March 2013.
- ^ "Japan protest over China ship's radar action". BBC News. 5 February 2013. Retrieved 7 March 2013.
- ^ "China and Vietnam in row over detention of fishermen". BBC News. 22 March 2013. Retrieved 7 March 2013.
- ^ Page, Jeremy (3 December 2012). "Vietnam Accuses Chinese Ships". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 7 March 2013.
- ^ Higgins, Andrew (10 June 2012). "In Philippines, banana growers feel effect of South China Sea dispute". Washington Post. Retrieved 7 March 2013.
- ^ a b Musgrave, Paul (May 2, 2019). "The Slip That Revealed the Real Trump Doctrine". Foreign Policy. Retrieved September 1, 2019.
- ^ a b Sanger, David E. (August 2, 2019). "State Dept. Officials Force Out Top Policy Planner and Adviser to Mike Pompeo". New York Times. Retrieved September 1, 2019.
- ^ Gabuev, Alexander (May 24, 2017). "Donald Trump's plan to play Russia against China is a fool's errand". South China Morning Post. Retrieved September 1, 2019.
- ^ Mehta, Aaron (August 15, 2019). "Tension between South Korea and Japan could hurt US goals in the Pacific — and China is watching". DefenseNews. Retrieved September 1, 2019.
- ^ Zhou, Laura (June 5, 2018). "Indian leader Modi wants no part of China-US rivalry, but still manages to keep Beijing happy". South China Morning Post. Retrieved September 1, 2019.
- ^ Peck, Michael (August 18, 2019). "100 Billion Reasons Why: Why Australia Said No to American Missiles Aimed At China". The National Interest. Retrieved September 1, 2019.
- ^ https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/20/surrounded-how-the-u-s-is-encircling-china-with-military-bases/
- ^ https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2331190/us-readies-for-war-with-china-with-400-bases-of-ships-and-nukes-to-create-perfect-noose-around-superpower-rival/
- ^ https://www.aei.org/economics/what-if-the-global-economy-had-stayed-closed-to-china/
- ^ "What Will the TPP Mean for China?". Foreign Policy. Retrieved 24 May 2016.
- ^ Perlez, Jane (6 October 2015). "U.S. Allies See Trans-Pacific Partnership as a Check on China". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 24 May 2016.
- ^ "Trade Is a National Security Imperative - Harvard - Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs". belfercenter.hks.harvard.edu. Retrieved 24 May 2016.
- ^ Boot, Max. "The Geopolitical Necessity of Trade".
- ^ Magnusson, Earl Anthony Wayne, Oliver. "The Death of TPP: The Best Thing That Ever Happened to China". The National Interest. Retrieved 2017-01-31.
{{cite news}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ "This Isn't Realpolitik. This Is Amateur Hour". Foreign Policy. Retrieved 2017-05-04.
- ^ "Trump Will Be Haunted by the Ghost of TPP". Foreign Policy. Retrieved 2017-11-22.
- ^ Green, Michael J.; Goodman, Matthew P. (2 October 2015). "After TPP: the Geopolitics of Asia and the Pacific". The Washington Quarterly. 38 (4): 19–34. doi:10.1080/0163660X.2015.1125827. ISSN 0163-660X.
- ^ Calmes, Jackie (5 November 2015). "Trans-Pacific Partnership Text Released, Waving Green Flag for Debate". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 24 May 2016.
- ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/05/business/china-us-trade-war-trump-tariffs.html
- ^ https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/Section%20301%20FINAL.PDF
- ^ https://theweek.com/articles/834610/china-isnt-cheating-trade-just-running-americas-old-plays
- ^ https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/24/business/us-china-trade-war-japan-intl/index.html
- ^ Yuwen, Deng (July 4, 2018). "The US sees the trade war as a tactic to contain China. So does Beijing". South China Morning Post. Retrieved September 1, 2019.
- ^ https://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/united-states/article/2164221/us-cold-war-containment-strategy-against-china
- ^ https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/30/chinas-70th-anniversary-us-technology-leadership-under-threat.html
- ^ https://m.theepochtimes.com/china-uses-debt-trap-diplomacy-to-seek-hegemony_2741883.html
- ^ https://tnsr.org/2019/07/unlocking-the-gates-of-eurasia-chinas-belt-and-road-initiative-and-its-implications-for-u-s-grand-strategy/
- ^ https://www.scmp.com/business/article/3007061/turning-chinas-belt-and-road-initiative-new-cold-war-weapon-us-deeply
- ^ https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/05/01/china-belt-road-partners-serbia-belarus-debt/
- ^ https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3008326/why-chinas-belt-and-road-loans-may-not-be-debt-trap-other
- ^ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/china-watch/business/belt-and-road-debt-trap/
- ^ Nuclear deal no threat to China, Pak: Narayanan Archived 2007-09-28 at the Wayback Machine. March 2006. Online News.
- ^ Gilani, Iftikhar (March 18, 2006). "US-India N-deal should not threaten Pakistan, China". Daily Times.
- ^ Jain, Purnendra (March 18, 2006). "A 'little NATO' against China". Asia Times Online.
- ^ Weisman, Steven (March 17, 2006). "Rice and Australian Counterpart Differ About China". The New York Times.
- ^ Australia and Japan cosy up. The Economist. March 16, 2007.
- ^ Graeme Dobell (March 18, 2007). Japan, Australia declare strategic partnership. ABC News Online Australia.
- ^ Walters, Patrick; Callick, Rowan (March 16, 2007). India's inclusion in security pact risks alienating China. The Australian.
- ^ "Inside the first ever U.S.-Japan-India trilateral meeting". Retrieved 7 July 2018.
- ^ "The Australia–India–Japan trilateral: converging interests… and converging perceptions? - The Strategist". 17 March 2017. Retrieved 7 July 2018.
- ^ https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2019/09/selling-f-16s-taiwan-bad-business/159915/
- ^ https://www.newsweek.com/lets-bomb-everything-philippines-president-rodrigo-duterte-urges-u-s-declare-war-china-1448223
- ^ https://thediplomat.com/2017/11/china-and-south-korea-examining-the-resolution-of-the-thaad-impasse/
- ^ Sackur, Stephen (12 April 2011). "Australia leases out mineral-rich land as China's hunger for resources grows". The Guardian. London.
- ^ http://news.oneindia.in/2006/03/11/rice-says-china-must-not-become-a-negative-force-1142062463.html
- ^ "Rice: US Has No Policy of Containment Against China - china.org.cn". www.china.org.cn. Retrieved 7 July 2018.
- ^ "The World Factbook — Central Intelligence Agency". www.cia.gov. Retrieved 7 July 2018.
- ^ Thakurta, Paranjoy Guha (March 15, 2006). "China could overtake US's India trade". Asia Times Online.
- ^ "The World Factbook — Central Intelligence Agency". www.cia.gov. Retrieved 7 July 2018.
External links
- US told to make China its No 1 enemy
- Containing China: The US's real objective
- WikiLeaks: Hillary Clinton's question: how can we stand up to Beijing?
- China and USA in New Cold War over Africa’s oil riches
- America's Unsinkable Fleet
- Obama and China: 21st Century containment in three moves
- Offshore Control: A Proposed Strategy for an Unlikely Conflict
- Recalibrating American Grand Strategy: Softening US Policies Toward Iran In Order to Contain China
- The View from China