Chinese insider: China playing, and winning, zero-sum game with US

[Jacob]

I think China is demonized in the US at least as much by the left as it is by the right.

Making it a fairly compelling external enemy, should one be necessary.

But back to the article, I don't agree with the notion that it is a zero sum game between the US and China.  I'm not even buy that the Chinese believe it.

There's enough Chinese that some of them probably believe it. But yeah, it does seem silly... if it's a zero sum game, you'd expect that the US would've been set back an equal amount to what the Chinese have gained these last couple of decades and that hardly seems to be the case.

[The Brain]

Sum-Zero wins.

[mongers]

So beyond the predictable nuke-em-all suggestions and variations, what do you guys think the likely trajectory of China-US relations in the next little while is?

They will continue to sucker punch us, and we will continue to accept it.

What are the likely end-games?

They will inevitably collapse under the weight of their own dysfunctional economic and political model.  Just like the Soviets did.

Yes, but what about China ?

[derspiess]

I think China is demonized in the US at least as much by the left as it is by the right.

Making it a fairly compelling external enemy, should one be necessary.

Okay.  But I don't think you need to worry about the "unreasonable right".  If anything, worry about some populist movement that is neither expressly left or right.

[Jacob]

Okay.  But I don't think you need to worry about the "unreasonable right".  If anything, worry about some populist movement that is neither expressly left or right.

Ah, I see what you mean. Yeah, there's nothing about what I call the unreasonable right that's particularly inclined towards conflict with China. My concern about the unreasonable right has less to do with direct foreign policy decisions, and more to do with making it harder for the US to address the various domestic issues which I think are critical for the future of the country.

[Admiral Yi]

Unless China uncharacteristically becomes interested in expanding geographically, the relationship can't be described as zero-sum in that regard.

Economics is by its nature not a zero-sum game.

That leaves the arena of international relations.  We're already seeing China's influence increasing, largely because of her financial muscle.  But that then raises the question of what the ultimate objective of Chinese foreign policy is.  If it's the creation of international public goods like trade and stability, why should we care who's doing the heavy lifting?  If it's simply aggrandiizement, then there will be a natural feedback look that will work to curtail China's influence.

[Lettow77]

 China can typically be trusted to keep within its sphere. America is the warmongering power between the two.

Japan should stick to a pro-american foreign policy while scaling up its military in realization of the fact that they can't rely on America forever. Good relations with Taiwan and the USA should remain the focus.


(with an eventual aim of re-incorporating taiwan)

[The Minsky Moment]

The PRC: the world's greatest threat to peace and human progress. The West: too weak and stupid to do anything about it.

The very fact Wang was permitted to publish his article demonstrates that the senior Chinese leadership is unlikely to have monolithic views about zero-sum competition; that is, he would not have done it unless he had some cover from dissenters from that viewpoint who are sufficiently powerful to make that cover effective.

[Cecil]

I seem to recall reading somewhere that Chinas biggest threat ahead of them is the fact that they are entering a demographic transition before they can afford it or in other words they are getting old before they are getting rich enough to support it. The repports of increasing labour costs in China would seem to support this. There just arent enough cheap labour anymore to keep this rapid growth up. Though obviously this is hardly my forte. 

[crazy canuck]

There was an article in this week's Economist regarding increased spending in South East Asia.  Most of it was attributed to various nations wanting to modernize their forces, and particularly navies, as tensions regarding the South China Sea rise.

If the article is accruate that would appear to be a good candidate for the next big international crisis.

[Barrister]

There was an article in this week's Economist regarding increased spending in South East Asia.  Most of it was attributed to various nations wanting to modernize their forces, and particularly navies, as tensions regarding the South China Sea rise.

If the article is accruate that would appear to be a good candidate for the next big international crisis.

That prediction has been made almost constantly for the last decade or more.

[Berkut]

There was an article in this week's Economist regarding increased spending in South East Asia.  Most of it was attributed to various nations wanting to modernize their forces, and particularly navies, as tensions regarding the South China Sea rise.

If the article is accruate that would appear to be a good candidate for the next big international crisis.

That prediction has been made almost constantly for the last decade or more.

Well, if an antire decade has passed without war breaking out, I guess that means peace forever.

I mean really, ten entire years? Why if it hasn't happened in TEN YEARS then surely it cannot happen.

[crazy canuck]

There was an article in this week's Economist regarding increased spending in South East Asia.  Most of it was attributed to various nations wanting to modernize their forces, and particularly navies, as tensions regarding the South China Sea rise.

If the article is accruate that would appear to be a good candidate for the next big international crisis.

That prediction has been made almost constantly for the last decade or more.

If there was a prediction 10 years ago that the South China Sea would be the next big international crisis then it was clearly wrong.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

There was an article in this week's Economist regarding increased spending in South East Asia.  Most of it was attributed to various nations wanting to modernize their forces, and particularly navies, as tensions regarding the South China Sea rise.

If the article is accruate that would appear to be a good candidate for the next big international crisis.

That prediction has been made almost constantly for the last decade or more.

depends on the definition of big

If there was a prediction 10 years ago that the South China Sea would be the next big international crisis then it was clearly wrong.

[crazy canuck]

Crazy Ivan,

by any definition of big, the war in Iraq, the escalation of the war in Afghanistan, the global economic melt down, the Arab spring, the Iranian on the verge of making nukes were things that occured before anything of substance occured in the South China Sea.