**Containment cp text



Download 171.23 Kb.
Page9/9
Date28.01.2017
Size171.23 Kb.
#9671
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9

Containment Bad

Difficult

A containment policy would be extremely difficult and have no support – would cause the destruction of a crucial economic partnership


Carpenter in 2016 (Ted Galen, Senior fellow in defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute and a contributing editor at the National Interest; “America's Doomed China Strategy;” The National Interest; May 26, 2016; http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/americas-doomed-china-strategy-16365?page=show)

Two developments in the past month indicate that Washington’s mixed policy of engagement and containment (or “congagement”) toward China has begun to tilt more toward containment. The first development was the visit of Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter to India in mid-April and the signing of a bilateral cooperation agreement on military logistics. The other episode is President Obama’s just-completed trip to Vietnam and the announced lifting of the long-standing arms embargo on that country. As usual, American officials insist that the marked change in U.S. policy toward Hanoi is not in any way directed against China. But such statements strain credulity, especially when viewed in the larger context of U.S. warships conducting “freedom of navigation” patrols in the South China Sea and bluntly reminding Beijing of America’s security obligations to the Philippines under a bilateral defense treaty. The containment side of U.S. policy has gone from merely assembling some of the necessary components, to be activated at a later date if necessary (first gear), to the initial phase of activation (second gear). More emphasis is likely to be placed on China as a serious strategic competitor, if not an outright adversary. But developing any kind of a containment policy against China is almost certain to prove hopelessly difficult. Despite the sometimes inflammatory rhetoric coming from Donald Trump and some other China bashers, the bilateral economic relationship remains quite extensive and crucial. China is America’s second largest trading partner. In 2015, the United States exported $116 billion in goods to China while importing $482 billion. Disrupting that relationship would be extremely costly and painful for both countries. That point underscores one key reason why reviving anything even faintly resembling the Cold War–era containment policy that worked against the Soviet Union is a hopeless quest. America’s economic relations with the USSR were minuscule, so there was little sacrifice on that front in taking a hardline stance against Moscow. That is clearly not the case today regarding America’s economic connections to China. There is also the matter of assembling a reliable alliance against Beijing. Conducting a containment policy against the Soviet Union during the Cold War was feasible because (at least during the crucial formative stages) neither the United States nor its key allies had much of a political or economic relationship to lose with Moscow. The costs, therefore, of shunning Moscow were minimal. That is clearly not the case with China. Most of the East Asian countries, including close U.S. allies Japan and South Korea, already have extensive economic links with Beijing. Indeed, China is Japan’s largest trading partner, accounting for one-fifth of that country’s total trade. It would not be easy for those countries to jeopardize such stakes to support a confrontational, U.S.-led containment policy aimed at Beijing. Tokyo undoubtedly has concerns about China’s behavior in the East China Sea (and about overall Chinese ambitions), but it would still be a reluctant recruit in a hostile containment strategy. Indeed, as time passed during the Cold War, even the containment strategy directed against the Soviet Union proved increasingly difficult for U.S. leaders. There is a final reason why an overt containment policy against China would be a poor option for the United States. Several troublesome global or regional issues will be difficult to address without substantial input and cooperation from China. It is nearly impossible, for example, to imagine progress being made on the difficult and complex issue of North Korea’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs without China’s extensive involvement. Such a strategy is likely to result either in a humiliating U.S. retreat under pressure or a disastrous military collision. A containment strategy is a feeble attempt to evade that reality.

Would Not Work

Empirics prove we should focus on engaging with China – containing is dangerous and would not work


Mendis and Wang in 2016 (Patrick, Rajawali senior fellow of the Kennedy School of Government’s Ash Centre for Democratic Governance and Innovation at Harvard; Joey, defence analyst; “Why the US will gain nothing from seeking to contain China;” South China Morning Post International Edition; April 27, 2016; http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/1938610/why-us-will-gain-nothing-seeking-contain-china)

If Washington really wants peace and prosperity in the region, words must be matched by deeds. Cold-war mindsets like “mutually assured destruction” will not work in the more nuanced Sino-American relationship. The Chinese experience, beginning with colonial America, has been more a case of economic engagement that worked towards “mutually assured prosperity”. America’s commercial venture with China goes back to the founding of the nation, when the American revolutionary war privateer, Empress of China, made its maiden voyage from New York harbour in December 1784 to Canton (now Guangzhou) with a cargo of Spanish dollars, ginseng, furs, lead and wine, returning home the following May with tea, silk and porcelain. And any disruption to these routes would have a significant impact not only on China’s economy but also the global economy. Recognising this fact and the potential disruption to the US economy, Washington should not only support Beijing in maintaining a healthy trade relationship, but continue to focus on building much needed trust, promoting fair competition and engaging China to join rule-based institutions, and paving the road towards “mutually assured prosperity”. Washington and Beijing are currently pursuing over 80 bilateral dialogues. These initiatives should continue to promote cooperative efforts that serve both nations, rather than viewing the dynamics of this relationship as zero-sum. It is time to return to the vision of US Founding Fathers of a commercial nation that is “a shining city upon a hill”. The rise of China is a fait accompli. To suggest that the US should contain China and, if necessary, go to war is, in the words of former secretary of state Henry Kissinger, “as dangerous as it is wrong”. It makes even less sense when the US is borrowing money from China, in the form of Treasuries, to finance that possible conflict. Containment is a policy with numerous contextual elements that cannot simply be transferred from the Soviet era. The US attempts to contain China may make it a self-fulfilling prophecy. China is not the new Soviet Union.

Engagement Works

Cooperation

Cooperation key – neither country can develop a confrontational attitude


Hewitt in 2016 (Duncan, Duncan Hewitt is Shanghai correspondent for Newsweek/IBT Media; “US-China Strategic And Economic Dialogue Opens in Beijing Amid Rising Tensions Over Trade And South China Sea;” International Business Times, digital global news publication that provides comprehensive coverage and analysis of the most important business, economic, political and technological issues around the world; June 6, 2016; http://www.ibtimes.com/us-china-strategic-economic-dialogue-opens-beijing-amid-rising-tensions-over-trade-2378408)

China’s President Xi Jinping called for greater trust between China and the U.S., as senior officials from the two countries began annual talks in Beijing, which have been overshadowed by tensions over the South China Sea and U.S. sanctions on Chinese steel makers. “The key is not to adopt a confrontational attitude toward any differences,” he said, adding, “Some differences cannot be solved at the moment and both sides should take each other's actual situations into consideration and take a constructive approach ... The key is not to adopt a confrontational attitude toward any differences.” In his speech to the opening session of the dialogue, Xi said the Asia Pacific region should be a platform for cooperation, not an “arena for countries to leverage,” the South China Morning Post reported. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, meanwhile, called on Beijing to promote a “diplomatic solution” to the South China Sea issue, and also called on China to keep up pressure on North Korea, a traditional ally of Beijing, which has launched a series of nuclear and missile tests this year. Some Chinese experts noted that there is still significant cooperation between the two countries: “The overall relationship is still positive, there is still a lot of cooperation, including on climate change, global nuclear issues and finance,” Professor Tao Wenzhao of the Institute of American Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, told International Business Times recently. Talks will also cover areas such as cooperation on innovation and agriculture, while President Xi called for progress on a long-debated Bilateral Investment Treaty between the countries. So while experts say the fact that the two countries can continue talking despite the current tension is a good sign, many believe relations are set for a further period of uncertainty in the foreseeable future.

China’s rise has caused a large interdependence between US and China – there has to be cooperation


Bendini in 2016 (Roberto, European parliament; “United States - China relations: a complex balance between cooperation and confrontation;” Policy Department, Directorate-General for External Policies; 2016; http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2016/570464/EXPO_IDA(2016)570464_EN.pdf)

China’s rise is a real game-changer both economically and geopolitically, and represents both an opportunity and a challenge for the major global power, namely the United States. China’s new economic and political weight fosters further cooperation with the US on a number of global issues, as well as increased collaboration within multilateral organisations. Given their sheer influence, both countries have global interests that make it difficult to find a solution for one without the consent of the other. Within a thirty-year span, China has become ‘one of a small number of countries that have significant national interests in every part of the world and that command the attention, whether willingly or grudgingly, of every other country and every international organization’ 1 . China has gone from being a poor and ostracised country to becoming an influential and increasingly developed great power. As China grew economically, its interests became more and more global and intertwined with those of a global power such as the US. This entanglement results in multiform ties between the US and China, and a complex balance between interdependence and diverging interests. The present study of this delicate balance will be divided into two parts. Firstly, China’s rise has led to a period of renewed and increasing collaboration with the US aimed at stabilising a world order enabling China’s prosperous development. This cooperation has been fruitful on a number of global issues and has also been a great enabler for the global economy. Interdependence and growing economic ties between China and the US have therefore been welcomed as factors for cooperation and vectors for easing some of the existing tensions. The extent to which both economies are intertwined manifests the degree to which this can influence their relationship. Each is highly reliant on the other and neither cannot afford the other to fail. China accounts for nearly 12 % of world GDP14 and has a growing influence on the lives of people in the US and everywhere in the world. The increase in cheap imports from China has improved the standard of living of many Americans giving them access to a wider choice of goods, and has supported the creation of jobs in industries such as transportation, finance, retail and construction15. However, other industries, such as manufacturing, have been heavily affected by China’s growing exports to the US: the proportion of Americans employed in manufacturing has fallen from 13 % at the end of the 1980s to 8.4 % in 200716. Reliance is very much a two-way street: with its growing investments in the US, the sheer volume of its exports to the US, and the large amounts of US treasury bonds it owns, China is also strongly dependent on the good health of the US economy.

Politics Links

Trade deal k2 Asia Pivot - to be rejected by Congress


Global Affairs Press blog 5-21-2016"Obama’s Pivot to Asia Staggers as Trade Deal Stalls in Congress," https://globalaffairspress.com/2016/05/21/obamas-pivot-to-asia-staggers-as-trade-deal-stalls-in-congress/

With two rows of sailors standing behind him, President Barack Obama strode alongside Manila Harbor last November to inspect an aging U.S. Coast Guard cutter that’s now the pride of the Philippine navy. The vessel was once part of a 12-cutter Coast Guard fleet known for requiring never-ending maintenance to stay afloat. Now, it’s a tangible example of Obama’s attempt to reorient U.S. foreign policy toward Asia and confront Chinese expansion in the Pacific. The gift of the 50-year-old Coast Guard cutter shows the difficulty of turning U.S. military and economic focus toward the part of the world Obama believes is most vital to America’s future. A sweeping trade deal with 11 Pacific-Rim nations, considered critical to the strategy, is in danger of rejection by the U.S. Congress. And China, the chief U.S. rival in the region, is aggressively pursuing territorial claims and increasing its belligerence toward U.S. friends and allies, including the Philippines, Japan and Vietnam. “By any stretch, our policy’s failed because China has responded to our coercion with resistance,” said Robert Ross, a Boston College political science professor who specializes in China. “The situation in Asia is clearly worse than it was eight years ago.”


Asia pivot faces many oppositions in Congress


Scott Stearns, VOA’s State Department correspondent. He has worked as VOA’s Dakar Bureau Chief, White House correspondent, and Nairobi Bureau Chief 11-10-2014, "Can Obama Pursue Asia Pivot With Republican Congress?," VOA, http://www.voanews.com/content/can-obama-pursue-asia-pivot-with-republican-congress/2515153.html

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said Washington is not giving up on a code of conduct or on improving cooperation with Beijing. "The U.S.-China relationship is the most consequential in the world today, period, and it will do much to determine the shape of the 21st century. That means that we have to get it right," said Kerry. Obama came to office pushing what he called an "Asia Pivot" of military, commercial, and diplomatic resources to the region. But that promise was never delivered on, said Cato Institute analyst Justin Logan, who continued that is unlikely to improve now that the president is facing opposition majorities in Congress. “I suspect that he would like to have a more strategic focus and would like to follow through on the so-called "Pivot." But even he is subject to the pressure of the media, the news cycle, legislative pressures,” said Logan.


Dems threaten TPP which would support Asian pivot of containment


Stuart E. Eizenstat, former US ambassador to EU David M. Marchick lawyer, former Deputy United States Assistant Secretary of State 3-2-14 http://www.rollcall.com/news/democrats_need_to_support_free_trade_commentary-231114-1.html

Almost ten years ago under President George W. Bush, Democrats in the House and Senate voted overwhelmingly against the last controversial free trade agreement to come before Congress, the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). Now leading Democrats in Congress are threatening to deny or delay, giving President Obama the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) essential to complete two of the largest free trade agreements in American history, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Partnership (TTIP). These agreements have enormous potential for creating hundreds of thousands of jobs and an almost one percent increase in U.S. GDP without adding to the deficit. If the Democratic Party cares about jobs, the deficit and the economy, it needs to embrace trade promotion authority and the two trade agreements for a number of reasons. For one thing, these pacts dwarf CAFTA, which involved five small Central American states. By 2020 some three-fifths of global GDP will come from Asia. TPP would help position the U.S. to take advantage of the growth of Asian markets. TTIP with the European Union would be even bigger. The U.S. has the world’s largest trade and investment relationship with the EU states. U.S. companies invest more than three times as much in tiny Ireland as in China. The bilateral trade relationship supports more than five million jobs in our respective markets. Some 60 percent of transatlantic trade is between affiliates of EU and American parent companies. TTIP would increase U.S. GDP by more than 0.5 percent without any taxpayer money. Second, both agreements advance our strategic and commercial interests. TPP would support the Obama Administration’s “pivot” to Asia by enhancing America’s influence in the region, and create pressure for market reforms in non-market economies. Likewise, a successful transatlantic trade agreement would reassure our European allies with whom we work closely on issues from Iranian sanctions to Syria and Afghanistan, that we continue to see them as a crucial partners in solving global problems.


Senate shut down spending bill to increase military power for Asia Pivot


Jordain Carney reporter 6-9-2016, "Senate rejects defense spending increase," http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/282881-senate-rejects-increasing-defense-spending

The Senate rejected a GOP push to increase defense spending Thursday despite a last-ditch effort to pressure Democrats into supporting the measure. Senators voted 56-42 to move forward with a proposal from Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to increase defense funding by $18 billion. Sixty votes were needed to move ahead; 11 GOP senators voted against McCain's amendment. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) tore into Democrats ahead of the vote, saying if they didn't support McCain’s amendment, they should go to their home states and “explain to those who are busting their ass to fight this war” why they voted against it. “You're going to vote no because you're worried about budget caps. Oh, we love the military,” he added. “Well, your love doesn't help them. Your love doesn't buy a damn thing.” But Democrats had been signaling for days they wouldn’t support McCain’s amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) unless Republicans backed a proposal from Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) to increase nondefense spending. Reed’s amendment would also have paved the way for $1.9 billion to fight the expected Zika virus outbreak, as well as a boost in Middle Eastern security spending. But Republicans voted down Reed’s amendment Thursday. Democratic Sens. Tom Carper (Del.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.) and Jon Tester (Mont.) voted against Reed's amendment. Democrats argue increasing defense spending without an equal increase in nondefense spending violates a two-year budget deal agreed to last year. Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) dug in ahead of the vote, putting Republicans “on notice” that passing McCain’s amendment would jeopardize other appropriations bills. “If Republicans pass this amendment of Sen. McCain, they’ll have a broken budget agreement and they’ll grind the defense appropriations bill to a halt,” he said. But Republicans argue the Pentagon currently faces an “emergency” that should supersede current budget deals and calls to increase defense and nondefense spending equally. They note the military is being asked to do more — including pivot to the Asia-Pacific, fight the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and push back against a resurgent Russia — with less money.

Download 171.23 Kb.

Share with your friends:
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9



The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message
    Main page
united states
national interest
defense budget