Talk:China Containment Policy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] NPOV

Although a British Citizen, I find that the language used in this article appears to be biased. Less loaded or emotive language may help to keep the article more neutral whilst still being informative. Ksbrown 12:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Sadly much of the language issues could be easily fixed by presenting thoughts more as hypotheticals than as established facts, which I will edit so now. However, just scanning the text I see that there are some sentences that may require more rigorous attention still.

(Edit) Just to summarize essential points of my edit, I substituted "ComIntern" for "the Soviet Union", George Kennan's containment theory was by no means limited to, or for that matter, really applicable to the Soviet Union alone. I added that diplomatic relations with China were denormalized, and further issues of P.R.C. vs. R.o.C. U.N. recognition. "...instead of a philosophy popular with fringe components of the U.S. political system" just didn't sit right with me at all. If this is a philosophy of "fringe components" then I don't think it really belongs here. Rather (and I know this is me soap-boxing) that reads like language calculated by P.R.C. diplomats to allow American policy-makers an apologetic scapegoat.

(2nd Edit) I have to say I'm not pleased with the whole idea. It amounts to speculation on secret plotting by the U.S. government. I don't think it has merit for being mere speculation if for no other reason.

But, there are other reasons that I don't like the idea. For one, although America is quite capable of operational security, the idea of the U.S. government -in a time of leaks, public disclosure and the freedom of information act, scrutiny by watchdog organizations, and public and internal audits- maintaining secrecy on the U.S.'s intentions seems a bit absurd. One could say three can keep a secret, if two of them are dead. This is all part and parcel of being a democracy.

Then again I suppose it's possible with this openness chinese analysts have confused internal discussions considering American policy as the will and desire of the U.S. government. Somewhat as the "fringe components" referred to previously suggests. But if that's so, there are certain things to keep in mind.

These discussions would be, what would for other nations, be discussions conducted behind closed doors, with other nations never being the wiser. Until the U.S. State Department makes official statements on U.S. Foreign Policy it is improper and inappropriate for China to respond to them in any way. That is, to borrow somewhat from the Chinese themselves, this is an issue of America's sovereign interests. In other words it's none of their goldang business!

One might say to that, what recourse then does China have if America prosecutes this policy in secret? To that, I'd refer back three paragraphs. But moreover this is a policy that's supposed to involve and be with the cooperation of several third-party nations. Are these nations supposed to be America's unwitting dupes? Or are they maliscious co-conspirators?

Another reason I don't like the idea, speaking of third-party nations, is the plausibility of the practicality and implementation of the idea. The supposed primary method of containment is economic. It may well be that the United States exerts considerable economic influence. But as the article itself freely admits, even before China became the economic powerhouse it is today, the idea of containing chinese trade seems alike holding back a landslide with one's own bare hands. I can not believe that American policy-makers could have failed to anticipate this.

Also since I think of it, it's America's over-riding policy to foster and expand free-trade. Of course, this has actually been a point of friction between the two nations, as China has not always played the trade game fairly. Which it may be noted from the article has given China ammunition to support the existence of an active containment policy. However, I would suggest not taking that for any more than exactly what it is.

This as well speaks to a seeming in-ability by the Chinese to take American Statements on Foreign Policy at face value. It has long been understood by, not just American diplomats, but the profession of diplomats in general, that with the historic diffulties of conveying meaning in cross-cultural and multi-lingual diplomatic dialogues make interpreting further meaning in diplomatic statements hazardous. (Plus, I just like to think of Americans as no-nonsense straight-shooters in general. Although legal disclaimers and tax law would seem to say otherwise.)

If chinese readers of this passage would permit me an uncomfortable example, there is the example of the pre-war dialogue between the United States and Imperial Japan. The U.S. essentially informed Japan that we did not approve of Japan's conduct in China, their alliance with the other Axis powers, and lastly their cementing that alliance with Japan's annexation of French Indo-China after France's surrender. Japan chose to interpret that dis-approval as an implicit threat. The U.S. further re-inforced our dis-approval with an oil embargo. Japan chose to interpret that as an explicit threat. But consider, most of Japan's oil imports came from the U.S. Really the U.S. was unwilling to be tacitly enabling Japanese atrocities.

That is, when the United States expresses unease with China's human rights record, or their treatment of either Taiwan or Tibet that's really all it is. America is comfortable expressing itself so as -somewhat recklessly- America maintains no anxieties that anyone will fail to take their words at any but face value.

I have to say, taking all into consideration, I believe the excerpts from the 2006 U.S. National Security Strategy are taken out of context. For one, the quote on military issues should be considered as nothing more than a dry calculating analysis. That is, American authors of military doctrine do not stay up nights contemplating what the Ugandan Army can do to the U.S. Military. This is nothing more than thoughtful professionals giving respect where it is certainly due. As for the next sentence I suspect (since it is not a direct quote) there is confusion on the difference between sentences in the imperative versus the declarative form, and would refer back to my previous thoughts. 68.48.160.243 00:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the axis of democracy

http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8871366 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.226.229.152 (talk) 05:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC).