China should not be our next whipping boy

October 28, 2010


Here we go again.

With a sort-of withdrawal from Iraq in progress, and a scheduled withdrawal from Afghanistan approaching, Washington needs a fresh adversary. How about China?

China is big and getting bigger. Its wealth and power is increasing. It’s inscrutable, whatever that means. (Just try understanding the United States.) And according to super-secret intelligence reports, China is pursuing national interest. This can’t be allowed — we’ve got to confront them!

Of course it is a standby of politics for governments to create international adversaries, in order to deflect criticism away from themselves. There’s a theory – best expressed in the great spoof Report From Iron Mountain — that while dictatorships can issue orders, democracies need enemies in order to prevent free men and women from saying, “To heck with central government.”

Polls suggest many Americans right now are contemplating the phrase “to heck with central government,” so perhaps Barack Obama’s White House thinks voters will be distracted if China is converted into an adversary. The idea is not new — the George W. Bush White House attempted the same.

When the younger Bush took office, the international scene was fairly tranquil, and at that point, people were tired of hearing Saddam Hussein blamed for everything. So Bush started talking tough about Beijing. This culminated in the Hainan Island incident, which raised international tensions. Cable news was abuzz with confronting China; Dick Cheney darkly hinted of war. The Council on Foreign Relations went to red alert.

Then 9/11 happened, and the China menace disappeared from headlines. Though not from intellectual discourse: this 2005 issue of The Atlantic, home to the very best general-interest public- policy writing, had “How We Would Fight China” as its main cover headline.

The cover photomontage, in creepy distorted color, shows an ominous, slanty-eyed sailor. Maybe he has inscrutable intentions! The Chinese sailor stands in front of, well, you can’t really tell, but the stuff in the background looks threatening too. “The American military contest with China in the Pacific will define the twenty-first century. And China will be a more formidable adversary than Russia,” The Atlantic warned.


Is the Chinese navy really a threat? Politically, is Beijing “newly assertive” or merely going through a natural transition as its stature grows? Do Beijing’s stances on exchange rates, trade and security threaten the United States, as opposed to merely annoying us? Because we annoy the living bejeezus out of them.

The United States wishes China would float its currency, rather than sustain fixed rates that promote Chinese trade. Governments make national policy based, usually, on what they believe advances their national interest. They may be wrong – maybe China should indeed stop managing the renminbi. But it’s ridiculous for Washington to act all horrified about Beijing using money to pursue its vision of national interest: if other nations told Americans how to use our money, we’d be outraged.

It is highly unrealistic for America to think China will fund the U.S. borrowing binge by purchasing Treasury bills; and also suppress its own consumption, while underwriting our middle class living standards by selling us cheap goods; and then also manage their currency to our liking.

U.S. political posturing about currency exchange rates go back at least as far back as the Ronald Reagan administration. American interest groups complain about exchange rates because this feels like something Washington should be able to control, whereas larger economic trends aren’t controlled by any government. When strong currencies benefit America, U.S. interest groups demand that. When weak currencies benefit us, we switch demands
Timothy Geithner just said:

G-20 emerging market countries with significantly undervalued currencies and adequate precautionary reserves need to allow their exchange rates to adjust fully over time to levels consistent with economic fundamentals.

Now, to whom could he be referring? Imagine how infuriating Beijing must find this sort of condescending hectoring, especially from a nation whose leaders will not take any step at all to put their own fiscal house in order.
China has many internal problems, including human rights abuses, corruption, pollution and lack of free speech. China’s relationship with Taiwan is a tense mess. The Han mistreat the Tibetans. The list of China’s faults could go on at some length.

But in the main, there has never been a superpower relationship like the one between Washington and Beijing — mainly constructive, mainly cooperative, neither side positioning to destroy the other.


The world’s largest public works endeavor — the $75 billion South-to-North Water Transfer Project in its early stages in China — could be smashed from the air in a day by United States precision-guided bombs. China is building the project because Chinese leaders assume they will never go to war with the United States. That’s what we should assume too — and not make China into a distant whipping boy for our own domestic problems that U.S. leaders are afraid to face.

Should the United States fear the Chinese navy?
China is expanding its navy, which today is equipped only for coastal operation, though perhaps someday will venture into the “blue water” where the United States Navy rules. Not long ago, the U.S. Navy and Chinese navy (its delightful formal name is the Army Navy) conducted joint exercises. Recently they have not, though China just conducted a joint naval exercise with Australia. Here is the Pentagon’s latest report on the Chinese military, which is decidedly non-alarmist.

This is the warship in the background of the 2005 The Atlantic cover. It’s the lead ship of a class that was cancelled, which makes it sound a lot less menacing. The vessel is a guided-missile destroyer. China has a handful of this type, while the United States Navy has many dozens. The United States has large numbers of more potent guided-missile cruisers, and a huge lead in nuclear attack submarines capable of long stays submerged: any one of them could eat the entire Chinese surface fleet for lunch.

The United States has 11 supercarrier strike groups: China doesn’t even have an aircraft carrier, let alone a supercarrier strike group. China has purchased unwanted medium-sized aircraft carriers from Moscow and is tinkering with them, though none sail. China is believed to be designing its own 50,000-ton conventional-power aircraft carrier, which would be similar to what the United States called a “fleet carrier” during World War II, and not as powerful as the 100,000-ton nuclear supercarriers the United States builds at enormous expense.

Today’s Chinese navy would not dare throw a stone at the United States Navy, and that relationship should continue for a generation or more. Will it change eventually?

By toying with aircraft carriers, China may be testing the waters, as it were. In the mid-1930s, when treaties forbid Germany from building heavy combatant vessels, Hitler ordered construction of “pocket battleships,” largely to see how Paris and London would respond. When they did nothing, he approved  a rearming program for the Germany navy.

Certainly Beijing might be engaged in modest naval expansion to see how we respond, thinking that decades from now, it too will command supercarrier strike groups. Friendly Washington-Beijing relations seem a better hedge against that day than scowling and finger-wagging. The United States asserts a unilateral right to sail as many advanced warships as it pleases. On what grounds could this right be denied to China?


We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see

Rare grammatical error from Easterbrook. Past tense of forbid is FORBADE — “treaties Germany from building…”

Posted by nadie | Report as abusive

One minor snippet. Cheap consumer goods from China don’t support the American Middle CLass, except in the very short term. They impoverish the middle class by removing jobs that were part of the American Economy and sending them overseas. Sure, our people were ‘overpaid’…but they spent and respent the money they were given here into our economy, and it’s those jobs which built the American middle class.
Without something to replace them, the ‘cheap chinese goods’ are eroding away the middle class, because people don’t ‘buy American’ i.e. pay American people. They are paying the Chinese. And it’s having a huge effect on our economy.


Posted by REDruin | Report as abusive

There was once a debate between my friend and myself, about being honest & assertive, China funded Clinton’s campaign, till today the republicans stand might be to look at China as an outsider, but Hillary will fund thier exit from recession. so long as a democrat governemnt is at the centre, China will be a friend, even a republican government cannot afford to talk tough with China now, for many US elections to come, so long as citizens are without jobs, repulicans will be blamed, and democrats will soar to power, China might contineu to fund democrat elections, and US may become a stooge like how UK has become US’s stooge now.
Uk once ceeded power to the mighty USA, China has taken reins to being the regional super power, Gregg, whipping China is out of the option.

Posted by arvindleop | Report as abusive

The main point is they don’t have a militant view of us (unlike us on them) and they just want to do business and trade based on negotiation, consensus, and agreement. Anything we’ve done with them was not because they coerced us, and we supposedly have free-will, right? If we don’t like what’s happening then we need to change, not blame them for what we choose to do and act like a hateful victim all the time.

Posted by mgunn | Report as abusive

Ahhh… I get it. China pursuing its national interest is completely reasonable (applies also to its policies towards Tibet, internal migration, Taiwan, and political dissidents??) but when the US pursues its interests we’re just a big bully. Let’s get real: All nations pursue what they perceive to be their national interest. That fact in itself couldn’t be more plain and obvious and is therefore irrelevant. The substance and morality and potentially threatening character of those actions is what count and should be the basis upon which they are judged, not this author’s 3rd-grade playground analysis of the bully and the bullied.
Regarding the last couple paragraphs, is the author criticizing the Atlantis cover story or the United States? Answer: the former with the intention of inspiring the latter.

Posted by mheld45 | Report as abusive

@mgunn well said. The main reason that China has gained so much power the last decade is because they haven’t poured trillions of dollars down the rabbit hole in fighting wars.

Posted by CDN_finance | Report as abusive

@CDN finance: The “main reason”? Get serious. But since you brought it up, China’s tentacles are reaching into every corner of the world, not unlike the US. As a consequence, it will eventually find it necessary to defend those interests. When it does, will you allege imperialism, etc. like you do towards the US?

Posted by mheld45 | Report as abusive

Much as I would love to simply recommend you, Mr. Easterbrook, and although I always appreciate your views, I refuse to join Facebook or Twitter, etc., so I am obliged to write this.

Thank you for a fine article.

Posted by Warburton | Report as abusive


American corporations CHOSE to relocate their manufacturing facilities overseas to MAXIMISE their earnings and make their CEO’s look like geniuses.
It’s a million times easier than to find a solution to raise the American level of competitiveness because that’s been taken for granted for so long.

Many of the other nations are quite happy to have “cheap Chinese goods” just to survive.

As a reality check, why don’t you run around the house and make sure everything there is “Made in U.S.A.”. If they are, congratulations!. You are doing your part.

But sadly, that’s still not enough because we are now slaves to the dollar sign.

Take some advice from @mgunn, especially the last sentence.

Posted by doctorjay317 | Report as abusive

CDN_finance, think you’ll find the reason China has this money is because it can help itself at any time to the savings of one in 5 people on the planet and can force hundreds of millions of people to work at abusive wages.

Weird that supporting literally the most evil regimes on the planet in return for resources – without even the pretence of it being anything else – is considered perfectly ok for China but if the US ends one of the most evil regimes on the planet all of the sudden it is no blood for oil

Posted by Danny_Black | Report as abusive

hmmmmm, gotta change the mind set. should read “China should not be treat America as their next whipping boy”

Posted by DimSum | Report as abusive

The reason why the middle class is being wiped out is because of the middle class. We don’t want to buy more expensive goods being made in America, so corporations have to manufacture offshore. We have to accept that if we want jobs and manufacturing to return to the US, we’ll have to pay for those at the register when we do our daily shopping. Either that or our income levels will decline over time until it reaches parity with China’s income levels (which is on the upswing). We’ll meet halfway. Until the whole world is ‘developed’ jobs will be moved from areas of higher cost to lower cost areas. I don’t want to make this sound like a pipe-dream, but that’s the reality. Pay up for better quality and US made stuff or continue signing away your lifestyle. We play dual roles when it comes to exporting our manufacturing base (and consequently our lifestyles). As consumers demanding lower prices and as investors demanding higher investment returns. It’s us, not them (company execs and overseas manufacturers/China).

Posted by habakak | Report as abusive

Reuters wrote: “China is expanding its navy, which today is equipped only for coastal operation”

Read the 02/25/2008 NYT article “Chinese Submarine Fleet Is Growing, Analysts Say,” especially the part where a Chinese Song-class submarine surfaced within torpedo range of the Kitty Hawk without the US Navy knowing it was there. The Kitty Hawk was not sailing near the coast of China.

Reuters wrote: “The United States has 11 supercarrier strike groups: China doesn’t even have an aircraft carrier”

Please explain why China is developing their Dong Feng 21D missile which travels at ten times the speed of sound and is specifically designed to kill large ships like aircraft carriers.

China is developing quiet submarines and not the obscenely priced nuclear ones the USA has.

Reuters wrote: “the $75 billion South-to-North Water Transfer Project . . . could be smashed from the air in a day by United States precision-guided bombs”

True, but perhaps you should review the recent flurry of stories regarding how China is locking-up the market on rare earths, essential for manufacturing smart bombs.

And Easterbrook completely ignored the economic impact of China’s entry into the WTO. China never seriously opened its markets to the outside world, yet it sold container ships full of products to the West.

Other posters noted how the trade imbalance is largely our fault for buying imported goods and this is true. However, China will not be the last low-wage country with which we will compete. More than a few companies are increasing production in North Korea, where the workers look downright inexpensive compared to China

Posted by saucymugwump | Report as abusive

The Chinese “people” shouldn’t be our whipping boy, the COMMUNIST Chinese government should be. I have nothing against the average person in China.

On the contrary I am ashamed at the way multi-nationals have exploited them for dirt cheap labor, to line their filthy, greedy selfish, pockets.

Nor do I approve of the way their communist government has aided and abetted the exploitation by forming an unholy partnership with the multi-nationals.

Think, if the Chinese government would institute a descent minimum wage for its people. It would make Chinese goods more expensive and less competitive globally, but in turn, the Chinese people would have greater purchasing power to sustain their economic growth domestically. They would also be able to buy more goods from abroad and this would go a long way in restoring global trade balances. Of course this won’t happen because if the Chinese took to the streets and demanded fair wages, their government would gun them down, and that, my friends, is what I hate about the Chinese government and that’s why I think they need a whipping.

I don’t oppose the Chinese people, I oppose their government’s part in the unholy relationship with multi-national off-shorers and their government used to exploit them. Slap tariffs on all goods created using slave labor and restore balance to our trade relationship.

Posted by garrisongold | Report as abusive

@saucymugwump, you make some good points, particularly regarding China’s not opening its markets nearly to the degree we hoped it would once it joined the WTO. I do want to look a little closer at the military angle, which you also mentioned.

Though the U.S. has never confirmed that the Kitty Hawk detected and tracked the Chinese sub that surfaced near it a while back and did so well *before* the sub ever surfaced, there have persistent rumors to that effect. While those rumors are exactly that — rumors — they don’t run contrary to reason when we consider them from the perspectives of (1.) keeping mum about just how advanced our detection capabilities are — a closely-guarded secret, of course — and (2.) counterintelligence activities. Which leaves those rumors still unconfirmed, but more plausible to entertain. [I should add I did not know anyone stationed with the Kitty Hawk Carrier Strike Group at the time of the incident, nor, indeed, anyone stationed on any ship in any of our 11 CSG’s, nor do I now (though I do know a few active-duty folks). Therefore, I certainly have no inside track myself.]

That said, it is known that China is making progress in stealth propeller technology and other stealth technologies — look at their fighter development program, for example. Just this week China announced the construction of an advanced submarine at its shipyard in Wuhan, west of Shanghai, which may have the PLA Navy’s most advanced stealth technologies to date. This is, of course, of considerable concern, particularly projecting 25-30 years forward and beyond.

You also mentioned the under-development Dong Feng 21D medium-range ballistic missile, being ominously heralded as a “supercarrier killer.” The DF-21 has been at the center of considerable excited commentary during recent months, as we irked Beijing immensely with the joint U.S.-South Korea naval exercise in waters off South Korea this summer and supercarrier port calls in the Philippines and Vietnam.

However, there have been a few yet persistent reports that the Chinese have experienced some technical difficulties, including with the missile’s targeting system. Also, while the range estimates I’ve read for it start at around 1,200 kilometers (~745 land miles) then go up to about 1,800 kilometers (~1,120 land miles).

Even if the reports of technical delays are incorrect (or the Chinese have overcome them), a glance at a map shows just how much area is within the missile’s reach. Fired from any mainland base, it could extend no further than the northwest part of the Bay of Bengal to the southwest; much of the South China, East China, and Philippine Seas to the south, southeast, and east as well as the Sea of Japan; and the Sea of Okhotsk to the northeast. And, yes, in places it could reach targets in the western fringes of the Pacific Ocean itself, including our carrier port south of Tokyo, currently home to the USS George Washington Carrier Strike Group. Further, should China station this missile on the hotly-contested Spratly Islands in the southern reaches of the South China Sea, the threat would reach into waters well beyond Borneo as well as to the all-important Strait of Malacca, though which some 2/3rd’s of the world’s cargo passes.

The question arises of just what provocation or perceived threat would lead Beijing to actually order an attack on a U.S. carrier? Considering the the pro-Beijing Wei Wen Po hewspaper, based in Hong Kong, reported just a day or two ago that an unnamed American admiral said such an attack would provoke a nuclear response from us, I imagine Beijing would pause and reflect upon the possible implications, no matter how angry the leaders might be. Claiming the entire South China Sea as a “core interest” — meaning that sea is part and parcel of PRC territory, in Beijing’s view, despite competing claims from other countries that ring those waters — is one thing. Risking a nuclear response by attacking a U.S. carrier is an altogether different kettle of fish, one that I would imagine even the most hawkish of the high command would carefully consider. (Let me interject that it’s entirely possible that our admiral was ordered to play the cat-and-mouse game to the hilt, assuming the Wei Wen Po’s story is accurate. After all, *we* would think long and hard — as I’m sure our contingency planners have already done — before the President would authorize such an extreme response as a nuclear one. Or, I sure as heck hope so.)

In short, it will be awhile, probably at least a generation, before China can reasonably contemplate going eyeball-to-eyeball with U.S. forces in even that part of the world, let alone elsewhere. Remember that even if the PRC were somehow magically able to open multiple regional military bases outside the PRC, bases fully manned and equipped with the very latest weapons and the platforms to deliver them — including stealth submarines and aircraft plus a number of supercarrier strike groups, China has not been involved in *any* war since its brief, if bloody, border war with Vietnam in the late 1970’s. That means that *none* of its frontline personnel — those that would actually be involved in any shooting — have *any* combat experience. Nor do most of the higher-ups. And it takes time to develop maximum expertise in a battle context (which is no criticism of the Chinese military; they have some excellent troops).

Finally, you mentioned that China has numerous subs. With a fleet said to number 60 submarines, that true. However, a considerable number are older classes with dated technology and limited usefulness. Also, the U.S. has around 100 submarines, and that’s excluding those used solely for training, research, rescue, manned submersibles, etc. Japan is looking into maybe adding up to 6 submarines to the 16 or so it already has. Vietnam would like to acquire some, as would Indonesia and Thailand. South Korea has some, then, of course, there’s always the Russian navy, something of a wild card in any maritime confrontation, especially far from its shores.

I don’t think we have to worry a *whole* lot in the short term.

Posted by MekhongKurt | Report as abusive

@saucy – some of what the chinese do, even if we don’t like it, is reasonable and sensationalizing it doesn’t help.

“range of the Kitty Hawk without the US Navy knowing it was there. The Kitty Hawk was not sailing near the coast of China.”

Okinawa is not that far from china.

“Please explain why China is developing their Dong Feng 21D missile which travels at ten times the speed of sound and is specifically designed to kill large ships like aircraft carriers.”

Uh, i suppose if someone else developed attack carrier
groups we would sit idle and not figure a way to defend from them?

“True, but perhaps you should review the recent flurry of stories regarding how China is locking-up the market on rare earths, essential for manufacturing smart bombs.”

Rare earths are dispersed everywhere and are not unique geographically to china, but only they are willing to extract them, a difficult and environmentally damaging process. So who’s fault is that? I’m surprised they even help us by selling at all, not like we would willfully sell rare (secret) military technological secrets to them.

“And Easterbrook completely ignored the economic impact of China’s entry into the WTO. China never seriously opened its markets to the outside world, yet it sold container ships full of products to the West.”

Ah, this is possibly the biggest myth of all. Of course ALL our corporations will always decry difficult access to always make more money. My uncle worked for P&G soaps. He told me a secret: they make more selling shampoo in china than the US! And this was over 10yrs ago. Some things can’t be hidden: GM is the number one car seller in china, even against domestic producers! I marvel at how I see American companies everywhere when I visit china. How many people can even name ONE chinese company in America? Ans. not many.

“which we will compete. More than a few companies are increasing production in North Korea, where the workers look downright inexpensive compared to China”

You picked among the worst example of where jobs would move if they left china, but I admit its better than thinking they would come back here. Think India, Indonesia, etc.

Posted by mgunn | Report as abusive

No politician in the world including US would like to appear to be inactive unless he/she has some whipping boy. Same is the case with nations. Instead of addressing their own short comings they always divert the attention of masses keeping one whipping boy or the other on their agenda. It has been going on & shall go on!

Posted by vksaini | Report as abusive

China as whipping boy? As victim? With genocide in Tibet and fifty million murdered in the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution (just for starters) that smacks of predator pretending that it’s prey.

Posted by Redford | Report as abusive

Danny_Black: Hypocrisy rears its ugly head once again. I think that you’ll find that during the past century since the U.S. came to dominance, we have also supported many so called “evil” regimes financially, militarily, covertly or otherwise. Definitely far more so than China. What’s even more ridiculous is that in many cases, we supported those regimes only to turn around and topple them years later should they choose to stop playing by our rules. The Middle East or Latin America as a whole are rife with examples of these types of active or intervention if you will, often under the disguise of humanitarian causes.

Mheld45: Don’t try to simplify the national interest issue. There are major differences between the methods China and U.S. choose to employ in pursuit of their own interests.

The U.S. by and large chooses to be proactive or even preemptive when it comes to foreign policies. We also tend of enjoy using military intervention as a form of blunt instrument diplomacy way too much. In any case, the mentality of “let’s hurt them before they can hurt us” seems to be the recurring theme.

China in contrast is more reative. They don’t actively go strolling around the world looking for problems or in some cases, create them like we do. They certainly do not go into countries with the mentality of *fixing* the problem to suit their own ideological, economic or strategic agenda. Instead, they prefer to react or adapt to the pre-existing conditions simply by adjust their own policies. The upper echelon PRC officials are often referred to as technocrats for this very reason. It is very calculating for sure but it’s also pragmatic.

Posted by blah77 | Report as abusive

Ahh, genocide in Tibet. There we set a good example for China and the rest of the world: look at the carnage we have left behind in the native American communities(if they can be called communities) over the 200 hundred years.

As to the fifty million murdered(more likely starved) in the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution, they did on their own, which was sad but doesn’t stir up too much of my sympathy.

Posted by Philo33 | Report as abusive

Sounds like another country to blame for our politicians in Washington and in alot of state houses also. We have cooked our own goose by not stepping. The middle class working people have to start acting like middle class and compete in the market rather than hiding out in part time full time government jobs and in companies where the union thinks they run the plant.

Posted by fred5407 | Report as abusive

This is amazing. Our enemy is not China. Our enemy is our government and our coorporations who are conspiring to steal from their own citizens of their mone and their civil liberty and rest of the world of their money. Gee. I forgot. We, Americns, are stupid. For example, how is that banks are able to lend money that they do not have and charge interest? Someone please explain this to me, that is, if you are not STUPID.

Posted by MESTRAW | Report as abusive

Also, stupid fellow American citizens, why are we worrying about China when we have issues? Shouldn’t we pay attention to our lives? Worrying about others WILL NOT solve our problems. What is wrong with us?

Posted by MESTRAW | Report as abusive

China being the whipping boy has been the natural consequence of the U.S. ethnocentric attitude, and sometime outright racism. We consider what we are not familiar with to be natural evil, and with that we find consensus among ourselves, especially among the more homogeneous groups. We ignore the fact the trade was done with both parties pursuing what they perceived to be their best interests; and often those perceived interests don’t turn out to be what they expect. On the U.S. side, we abhor the loss of jobs, and on the Chinese side, they lament the pollutions incurred around them due to this trade.

What’s disturbing is, in the weeks leading up to the midterm elections, that some of campaign ads, from both political parties, took a whip at China, in order to discredit the other party. They sure find an audience in the largely homogeneous and often racist groups, but put on the international stage, people wound find them distasteful. And in terms of soft power, or the long-term political influence and persuasiveness of the U.S., these undeserved whippings undermine it, something that we wouldn’t realize at the moment.

Posted by Philo33 | Report as abusive

@redford – quit pretending to care (about tibetans, cultural revolution victims, etc.) or at least pretend to care about our own atrocities.

Funny how bad things others do seem like yesterday (cultural revolution 30+ years ago, takeover tibet 60 years ago, etc) yet our involvement in Vietnam where millions died is ancient history. The invasion of Iraq is ancient history too. And even the Dalai Lama calls the chinese genocide a “cultural” genocide, not like the real genocide we committed on Native Americans who still live in squalor in reservations to this day.

Posted by mgunn | Report as abusive

A few comments were reasonable, coming from mature, intelligent persons. Sadly, most comments were racist, and belligerent. Most felt that the US Government had God’s given right to bully the Chinese, and, for that matter, the rest of the non-Caucasian world. Talking about the sale of rare earths, China does not have a monopoly. The USA, Australia, Canada, Russia and other countries have ample supplies in their soil but choose not to exploit these yet, instead to store for future use and also make “killings” in sale when supplies in China have run out. The Chinese too must have reason not to over exploit their supplies but retain these for future use. Remember that USA created wars in the Middle-east and South America so as to exploit the petroleum resources there while retaining its petroleum in the ground. I could go and on on these topics, but you get my drift.

Posted by Onghony | Report as abusive

They should not! And America should watch them carefully as they are soon to sneak in & do trade big time with Iran (both oil & nuclear) since Russia undone most deals there because of the Subsidies. So, once they’re in there, they’ll be part of a double edged sword to deal with.

Chinese government I am talking about, & not the Chinese people, in case I cause offence.

Posted by IrishGiggle | Report as abusive

It is difficult to understand American – calling any one who are improving their lots “enemies” and “threats”. No one can invade China, India, Japan without a all-out war being sanctioned.
The Chinese naval base is in Hainan island; that’s about it! The containment of Chinese trade routes and fishery is a concern for their growing population that has real needs. The next real threat globally is social, political and cultural difference between mainstream European, North American and North-East Asian. I don’t think India will be a superpower but a niche player to contain China through engagement with Pakistan. The Middle-Eastern countries – including Pakistan, also including the prevalent influence of Islam, will continue to be a balancing act for North-East Asian.
I believe the Japanese, in spite of demographic balance, has a lot to offer to North East Asians. They are more thorough in population propaganda and culturally more embedded than other emerging countries. Hence, a strong ballast will tide the nation over difficult times.
I thought I saw something in Obama and his vision delivery but somewhat disapointed with American’s idea of quick-fix. Americans are veryyy democratic and this social and cultural base is good for the world to follow. However, for the US to police global compliance is a different story

Posted by lphock | Report as abusive