Sure you can. Explain what Biden is going to do to stop it. Or how Biden isn’t doing it.
Already?
I’m surprised they waited this long.
Can you imagine if some adviser to Trump had said we should encourage Russia’s rise?
3 Likes
Biden bought and paid for by Chinese…just as we said he was.
4 Likes
I’ll be glad when the libs come and explain this to us all.
Yes…as soon as government office hours start tomorrow.
1 Like
the way this is turning out, a nomination might be better than a subpeona
“We need to strike a middle course – one that encourages China’s rise in a manner consistent with an open, fair, rules-based, regional order,” Sullivan said. “This will require care and prudence and strategic foresight, and maybe even more basically it will require sustained attention. It may not have escaped your notice that these are not in ample supply in Washington right now.”
Sounds like a pretty smart approach to me.
Better than hurting our farmers then bailing them out with socialism.
7 Likes
He thought that in 2017…before COVID…essentially he was advocating an offshoring balancing approach…an approach that in theory is actually quite sensible, since US hegemony as a grand strategic concept is unsustainable.
Now post-COVID obviously this is much more problematic. Let’s see what he says now.
Offshore balancing in principle is almost what Trump himself was trying to do.
Well…he was trying to withdraw the US from being a busybody all over the world…which is a goal of offshore balancing.
TBH I’m not impressed with Biden’s selections so far…would have hoped for some fresh blood.
Did you read past the title?
Yes. Read the article. Thanks for asking.
Thanks. I knew it was a “smart approach”, I just didn’t know how.
Repeat this to yourselves:
I am smarter than Fox News and CNN staffers. I don’t need them to tell me how to think.
From Sullivan’s speech:
Owen Harries was right when he warned against containment of China. That is a self-defeating policy. But so is acquiescence. We need to strike a middle course, one that encourages China’s rise in a manner consistent with an open, fair, rules-based regional order. This requires care, and prudence, and strategic foresight. Even more fundamentally, it requires sustained attention. These are not in ample supply in Washington right now.
Amidst this discussion of the U.S.-China relationship, let’s not forget that where China is headed at home remains a very real question mark. Analysts’ predictions for the Chinese economy and long-term domestic stability range from doom-and-gloom to an inexorable upward rise. Most fall into the muddy middle, where a range of risk factors lurk. How things play out inside China will of course have a significant impact on the future of the U.S.-China relationship.
And let’s also not forget the role of the rest of the region in responding to China’s rise. Do they essentially accommodate, or do they seek to work together, drawing in the United States to provide a durable counterweight?
Different countries will obviously supply different answers — how ASEAN looks at this will be different from India, or from Japan, or Korea, or Australia, and even within ASEAN there will be different perspectives.
I expect over time that our friends and partners in the region will become increasingly concerned about the possibility of a 19th-century-style sphere of influence in Asia, in which China slowly nudges the United States out and consolidates its power and influence in a way that will ultimately force regional countries to supplicate.
However this plays out, it is a good reminder that America’s China policy needs to be about more than just bilateral ties, it needs to be about our ties to the region that create an environment more conducive to a peaceful and positive-sum Chinese rise.
Moderator: What would your advice be on Europe, and do you think there are merits in taking that approach, and what’s the risk?
JAKE SULLIVAN: My advice to Europe on this? Well, you know, number one: I think engaging the Chinese on economic issues, on climate issues, on this whole range of transnational issues, is a no-brainer from the perspective of the Europeans. It absolutely makes sense. It would’ve made sense even if Hillary Clinton had been elected president. The Chinese still would have and should have shown up in Brussels to have these conversations. And as you say, the increasing economic engagement is something that is happening sort of irrespective of political dynamics happening in Washington.
I also think the Belt Road initiative is an intriguing proposition if it’s done right. What worries me to a certain extent is that any given decision seems small but the collection of decisions over time can add to a big consequence. If all the Belt and Road Initiative turns into - or all the European economic relationship - turns into is the advancement of a long-term kind of spears of influence project, or the Chinese ending up through a combination of influence and corruption dominating the economic space between China and Europe – I think that that redounds to everyone’s detriment, ultimately including China’s. So, I think that the Europeans have to think hard about taking a larger role in a project that the US has been engaged in for some time. It is doing everything we can to both facilitate and encourage China’s economic rise and to support it – because a thriving China is good for Europe, it’s good for the United States, it’s good for Asia. But at the same time, to be clear about the parameters of the system within which China is rising. And I worry that the Europeans have basically allowed the United States to do that bit of it without really doing it so much themselves, and as they take on a larger role in the relationship it is important that they step up on those issues as well.
So as usual, the people working for these outlets create a clickbait title, and people react to it without reading the article. The article of course leaves out key detail and context. It links to the video of the speech which has only 1300 views, so no one is watching.
4 Likes
I read it.
This requires smoking crack. When has China ever shown the slightest inclination to be any of those things?
1 Like
As I said, it’s called offshore balancing.
It’s a middle road between trying to maintain American hegemony (can’t be done) and “America Alone” (won’t justify it by calling it America First anymore).
It may or may not be workable in practice because it requires a deftness and delicacy that may be beyond today’s “statesmen”.
It also is a hard strategic concept to follow in today’s environment with dumbed down political discourse where if you can’t explain something in two seconds with a pithy phrase, it’s bad.
2 Likes
Fancy name for surrendering for profit.
2 Likes
Late 90s Asian financial crises. China, overall, supported stability in the region (to its benefit, of course)
So what he actually said was:
" However this plays out, it is a good reminder that America’s China policy needs to be about more than just bilateral ties, it needs to be about our ties to the region that create an environment more conducive to a peaceful and positive-sum Chinese rise."
Then imagine the reaction if Trump had said:
However this plays out, it is a good reminder that America’s Russia policy needs to be about more than just bilateral ties, it needs to be about our ties to the region that create an environment more conducive to a peaceful and positive-sum Russian rise.
How does that sound better?
1 Like
