Sino-American Alliance?

[IamthePope]

Most analysts have characterized present Sino-American relations as complex and multi-faceted, with the U.S. and the People's Republic of China (PRC) being neither allies nor enemies. At the same time, it is generally acknowledged that the nature of Sino-American relations will be a major factor in determining the state of the world in the 21st century.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-American_relations

BEIJING (Reuters) - China and the United States have agreed to upgrade military exchanges after commanders from the two often wary military powers met in Beijing, Chinese state media reported on Thursday. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060511/...4yBHNlYwNmYw--

Cumulative U.S. investment in China is valued at $48 billion. The U.S. trade deficit with mainland China exceeded $350 billion in 2006 and was the United States' largest bilateral trade deficit. Total two-way trade between mainland China and the U.S. has grown from $33 billion in 1992 to over $230 billion in 2004(Bunton). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-American_relations

With the recent visit from Chinese premier Hu Jintao to the US, the application of the Chinese policy of "Peaceful Rise" policy, and increased Sino-American Diplomatic, military, and economic relations, is it possible that the US and China could become uneasy allies of necessity in the coming decades instead of the coldwar style rivals that some predict?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%27s_peaceful_rise
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-American_relations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%2...itary_spending
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hu_Jintao

[Garbarsardar]

Allied against whom? India? Russian Federation? Alliances need enemies and I clearly don't see any China's prospective enemy that the US would frown upon (Japan, Korea, Taiwan) or the inverse for that matter...

Try these now, they contain recent news:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...diamoon10.html

http://www.bnamericas.com/story.jsp?...53220&idioma=I

[IamthePope]

Allied against whom? India? Russian Federation? Alliances need enemies and I clearly don't see any China's prospective enemy that the US would frown upon (Japan, Korea, Taiwan) or the inverse for that matter...

Allies don't so much need enemies as a common purpose. Maintaining global peace and security for corporate investment and ensuring the stability of the world economy could be seen as a mutual goal that the US and China could work towards. Many neoconservative writers are threatened by the expanding economy and rising military expenditure of China. The US and China have so much in common today, and could gain so much by working together. Is it not implausible that the US and China could become more allies than enemies in the 21st century?

or will the 21st century be a multifaceted struggle for international political dominance with emerging Asian economies like India and China vying for international influence with established powers like the US, Russia, the EU, and Japan?

[gigagaia]

Allies don't so much need enemies as a common purpose. Maintaining global peace and security for corporate investment and ensuring the stability of the world economy could be seen as a mutual goal that the US and China could work towards. Many neoconservative writers are threatened by the expanding economy and rising military expenditure of China. The US and China have so much in common today, and could gain so much by working together. Is it not implausible that the US and China could become more allies than enemies in the 21st century?

or will the 21st century be a multifaceted struggle for international political dominance with emerging Asian economies like India and China vying for international influence with established powers like the US, Russia, the EU, and Japan?

Peaceful cooperation and ties are not alliances. Alliances are very specific entities with very specific goals. Only NATO has barely risen above a simple and traditional military alliance and even still retains a military structure and component which will never be lost.
All of their mutual goals as of now, and even in the future don't even need an alliance, but can be achieved by simply cooperating in the UN on common issues (something that they don't do).
Unless China democratizes and improves its human rights record, as well as a clear enemy presents itself which threatens both states, I doubt that you will see anything more than friendly and cooperative relationships between the two.
This is also predicated on an inevitable rise of China which is by no means assured as of now. It is very much too early to judge about an inevitable rise.

I think that you should adopt a wait-and-see approach. As China develops and rises (assuming it does), it may democratize more and more. If this happens, you will see a lot more cooperation between the two powers. But again, this does not mean a military alliance, and these countries would likely just cooperate more at the UN and through conferences and treaties.

[sephodwyrm]

The common enemy to both would be terrorism. Har har.

[Red Harvest]

That's a good point about NATO. NATO is surviving as way to provide for common defense and at the same time provide a way to work around predictable stonewalling in the Security Council by China and Russia.

There is really nothing to unite China and the U.S., and quite a few things that insure long term rivalry instead. You are far more likely to see some sort of Sino-Russian alliance than one with the U.S.

[rez]

In other words, America sees China growing far too powerful and would really rather the Chinese were on their side rather than against them? Or something to that effect right?

If they really want to work together for peace and Justice put a lot more energy into the U.N. and NATO instead of their military budgets

[Last Roman]

Perhaps it won't happen, maybe it will. I don't know why so many of you are dismissing it so soon. It is plausible, and what everyone should want. We don't need another cold war.

[Red Harvest]

I don't know why so many of you are dismissing it so soon. It is plausible, and what everyone should want. We don't need another cold war.

It doesn't appear at all plausible. The systems of govt. are not compatible and are on the opposite ends of the spectrum. Ditto for the economic/business systems. A number of U.S. allies are in a state of perpetual Cold War with China or Chinese allies. The Cold War with China never ended, nor is any clear end in sight.

The ball is in China's court, not the U.S. It would be best not get over eager to be buddies with China. Until China is willing to resolve things with Taiwan and until North Korea's regime, is toppled it is hard to imagine much changing diplomatically. Economically, the Chinese govt. controls trade...not the U.S.

I don't see the basis for an alliance: no common enemy, no shared economic or govt. philosophy, no traditional ethnic/cultural ties, and a very lopsided trading arrangement.

Not being allies doesn't mean that China and the U.S. must be hostile either.

[trackjacket]

Aren't the Chinese fighting muslim extremists in the northwest? That's a common enemy, I suppose. Certainly more abstract than a sovereign nation though.

[Sétanta]

An alliance doesn't need to be military related necessarily. We can cooperate on the War on Terror, fair economics that work a profit for both sides and generally just get on better terms within the respective governments

[Lee1026]

A economical alliance along the lines of the european common market may be possible, but I failed to see a military alliance taking shape unless if Japan start getting openly hostile to both of the nations. (AKA impossible, basically.

[Isnogood]

A Sino-American Alliance ?

The most important thing,the US and the PRC have in common (with the rest of the world btw.) is their rising demand for resources:oil,gas,metals.

The chinese, converting economical success into political power are using their influence to gain access to more resources, ensuring their economical growth and repeating the mistakes of the west.By putting their self interests above (western) law and stability through trading with international pariahs like iran or sudan supporting them in the UN, both the US and China will find themselves with more and more conflicting interests.

One major issue in the near future will probably be China's influence in south america, with an attractive alternative trading partner like China, both economical as well as political shifts away from the US are possible if not likely, given the US' history in the region.More plainly:China's gain,the US' loss.Another thing one might want to keep in mind about China's "peaceful rise"-policy, is it's "pacification" of Tibet, demonstrating very clearly the chinese government's "will to power".

To prevent or at least limit the prospect of future confrontation,i.e. by proxy-wars for influence and resources, the west has to agree and act upon a resolved political agenda to point out to china and the other rising powers ,that the west's political,economical and ecological mistakes must not be repeated as well as there should be a push for further democratisation (as should have been in Russia after the CW) and for the acceptance of international law (by all sides), so that the growing worldwide interdependence can proceed peacefully.

[IamthePope]

To prevent or at least limit the prospect of future confrontation,i.e. by proxy-wars for influence and resources, the west has to agree and act upon a resolved political agenda to point out to china and the other rising powers ,that the west's political,economical and ecological mistakes must not be repeated as well as there should be a push for further democratisation (as should have been in Russia after the CW) and for the acceptance of international law (by all sides), so that the growing worldwide interdependence can proceed peacefully.

An interesting concept. Do you think regional conflicts of influence in places like S. America could lead to growing US-Chinese tensions in future years? If so, is a cold war style conflict inevitable or have the nations of the world grown out of the petty rivalries of the cold war era?

[sephodwyrm]

From what I think, Tibet does have to be put down back in the 50s, and so does Nepal (but it is not). Theocracies (that have really gross means of execution such as skinning people) or outdated monarchies should be discarded.

[Isnogood]

From what I think, Tibet does have to be put down back in the 50s, and so does Nepal (but it is not). Theocracies (that have really gross means of execution such as skinning people) or outdated monarchies should be discarded.

Ah well, but taking over and running countries for people whom one does not deem fit for live in the modern world is a concept that has been discarded in the last century and I don't quite see how a chinese presence does improve things in Tibet, as far as I know tibetans are becoming -by being kept out of the education system and the job market- marginalised in their own country and while the infrastructure is indeed being improved (railroads built exclusively by chinese workers),critics claim these steps are primarily to more effectivley project the power of the government...

[RusskiSoldat]

Ah well, but taking over and running countries for people whom one does not deem fit for live in the modern world is a concept that has been discarded in the last century and I don't quite see how a chinese presence does improve things in Tibet, as far as I know tibetans are becoming -by being kept out of the education system and the job market- marginalised in their own country and while the infrastructure is indeed being improved (railroads built exclusively by chinese workers),critics claim these steps are primarily to more effectivley project the power of the government...

Tibet in itself is not a good example, as China is just starting to really develop it.
Still, Chinese rule must've been better than the old feudalist theocracy based on slavery that they had.

[Isnogood]

@IamthePope

An interesting concept. Do you think regional conflicts of influence in places like S. America could lead to growing US-Chinese tensions in future years?

As the newspaper article you quoted says: It is a "complex situation", the growing trade between south america and China allows the former a greater measure of economical and in turn political independence.Therefore the US can't take south american resource supplies for granted anymore and is forced to secure other sources to diversify supplies.

Other powers, like the EU but especially the rapidly growing demand of rising powers such as China or India will lead to intensified competition.Since many resources are situated in politically instable regions (Africa,ME etc.) it is likely that the regional political factions will hope for the support of the various parties in turn for accepting this party's claim for the resources.This support can take many forms, from political support to arms and military training and even escalate to proxy wars.

If so, is a cold war style conflict inevitable or have the nations of the world grown out of the petty rivalries of the cold war era?

Again this is too complex to answer directly.

China is the only power that has the potential of challenging the US in any foreseeable future though it is very unlikely for the next two decades - but one has to keep in mind, that it is gradual process.

Another factor is the growing interdependence as consequence of what is called globalisation.While -at first glance- it is true that China's rising power is at the cost of american power, there is a symbiosis there which means that no side can harm the other directly, without harming itself.

If China's econmical growth continues at at the present pace, it all boils down to the plans of the political leadership and the competition for resources.

A "cold war"-like scenario will only be possible, if the process of democratisation and privatisation in China is halted, not able to keep up with the economy or in the case of economical crisis.

@RusskiSoldat

Still, Chinese rule must've been better than the old feudalist theocracy based on slavery that they had.

Well, when disregarding the fact, that the Tibetans are for the most part excluded from the progress of their country one might applaud China for her modernisation attempts.