Se Asia Getting Closer To Usa In Response To Chinese Rising Power

[Pacificperson]

Personally, I believe that the Chinese Government has the best interests of its people at heart. This is not saying that the government will not do what it thinks is necessary for its survival. However I also believe that the government sees its survival as necessary to protect the interests of the Chinese populace, because of its fear of falling back into something similar to the internal wars that lasted from 1916 to 1949. I don't know of any estimates of how many Chinese suffered and died because of these disputes, but it was enough that internal stability is the foundation of Chinese political policy. Economic development is good in that it promotes stability and improves peoples lives. Time is the enemy, and the government will do what it can to secure the resources necessary to promote continuous economic growth. This helps keep the populace happy.

Now back to the original question. Thailand is a breadbasket and it has other resources that China needs. It is also a market for Chinese goods. Luckily, Thailand does not share a border with China. Many of the countries that border China have at least one area under dispute: Korea, Japan, Vietnam, the Philippines, India, Pakistan and others. Many of these countries see the US as counter balance to Chinese power. Although Thailand has had a long a friendly relationship with the US, I doubt that the Thai government feels the same sense of potential conflict as these other Asian countries may feel.

Edited August 13, 2010 by Pacificperson

[Jingthing]

China bashing? China had best get used to being under international scrutiny. They already have a massive influence globally and are set for that to grow much greater. The big guy, the big bully, always is subject to "bashing", that's part of the game. But really this isn't at all about demonizing China, or demonizing Chinese people, it's about a big change in the balance of power in the world, and of course our local S.E. Asian region. How to deal with it, what are the intended and unintended consequences going to be ? The panda pandering comment was indeed meant to be humorous.

[Ulysses G.]

Last warning.

This is not a thread about the evils or greatness of the USA. This is a thread about China's influence in SE Asia and how that relates to Thailand. Bringing up comparisons with the USA or any other country is probably appropriate, but this US-bashing/defense needs to stop. If we can't bring the thread back on-track, it will have to be closed.

its an china bashing thread by the Us-americans because they are losing their influence and power.

Why would you quote a mod telling you to stop doing something and then do it again? Why don't you go back to praising what the redshirts did on May 19? At least that particular type of trolling is about Thailand.

Edited August 13, 2010 by Ulysses G.

[kikoman]

China's influence and power will continue to grow in SE Asia, as it economic/industrial complex continue to grow at such an accelerated rate.

What I can not understand is why countries that look with a wary eye on China's growing power in the world continue to import China's cheap products to sell in their countries and aids China's economic growth!

Cheers:

Edited August 13, 2010 by kikoman

[Heng]

Mostly because it's nearly impossible to avoid Chinese made goods nowadays. A series of less than intelligent decisions (presuming that one thinks a world economy where China is the largest producer and consumer is a 'bad' thing) on the part of the former 'top consumer' societies brought them to where they are now.

Not unlike an old friend of mine who sometimes wonders out loud why he's stuck in Thailand, trying to support an Issanite family of 7 on a TEFL'ers salary. Well, you got off the plane, you had a few too many drinks one night, you impregnated a local, you adopted her kids and mother, you had more kids with her, etc... Anyway, now there's no way out.

[keemapoot]

One of the factors that has not yet been mentioned with regard to China's influence on SE Asia is the huge Chinese overseas diaspora. There are generations of ethnic Chinese deeply entrenched in positions of wealth and power in Indonesia, Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia etc., and true to form, most of them hold their heritage closely and proudly and pass it on to future generations.

What this may suggest is that China may find an easier time getting some nations to "roll over" than we might otherwise think.

However, insofar as Vietnam is concerned and the disputes over the Spratleys etc., it is clear they have cozied up to the US militarily and in other respects. They are clearly looking for a counterbalance to the Chinese juggernaut. Thailand, and the other greater Mekong nations have a huge stake in seeing that the Chinese proposed additional 4 dams which they want to build to harness electricity, do not harm the silt, ecosystem, and water supply downstream in the Mekong. This could drastically affect over 60 million people directly.

China is a self-serving nation (as all are), that has the power, clout and money to get what it wants. I think it's clear that many SE Asian nations will attempt to draw the US closer to counterbalance this threat.

Edited August 14, 2010 by keemapoot

[LaoPo]

China's influence and power will continue to grow in SE Asia, as it economic/industrial complex continue to grow at such an accelerated rate.

What I can not understand is why countries that look with a wary eye on China's growing power in the world continue to import China's cheap products to sell in their countries and aids China's economic growth!

Cheers:

If you don't understand why countries buy Chinese made products (or Vietnamese, Thai, Indonesian)...you don't understand economics.

It's not the Chinese who SELL their products....it were the Americans, Germans, Brits, Aussies who came to China (first via Hong Kong) to look for producers and BUY (made to their order) since they couldn't get their products made elsewhere anymore at a better price.

Simple.

Next to that I hear nobody that the Americans and Germans for instance are SO pleased that the Chinese buy their products by the thousands, cars and machinery for instance.

A company like GM would collapse within one month if the Chinese would stop buying their cars. They were bankrupt anyway and saved by the government.

This whole topic is a one-way street of propaganda for a so called counter balance by the US, hedge if you wish, for the alleged power of China in SE Asia.

Rubbish; as if China wants a counter balance in the American hemisphere and the US would allow that....give me a break.

LaoPo

[Jingthing]

Balderdash! China is very much interested in close ties with Latin American countries. It is happening already.

[wintermute]

Maybe, but the bill is not due yet. Such situations often change. Everyone thought that Japanese "restaurants" were going to take over the market for a while there, but look at them now.

Comparing Japan to China is like comparing apples to oranges. China is on a completely different geopolitical and economic scale when it comes to potential and size.

With that being said the developing world economies (including China) have been increasing trade with each other to counterbalance increasing protectionist activity coming from the "first" world. It should be interesting times to come because the developing world controls most of the world's natural resources as well.

I do think the U.S. has nothing to worry about though. America's presence isn't waning..it's just that a large number of developing world countries will become more important in the future. America is still positioned in a very good way (large country, good infrastructure, technology leader) to adapt.

The EU probably has significantly more to worry about since it's a collection of less efficient smaller nations who are rapidly losing their comparative advantage. Although the Scandinavian countries (and Germany) will probably be fine even in the distant future.

Out of all western nations though the ones that will fare the best in the new world balance will be Canada and Australia. They both have relatively low populations per sq. km and have a ton of natural resources. This means they can maintain a high economic standard of living indefinitely.

Edited August 14, 2010 by wintermute

[Jingthing]

The US has some serious structural problems. Recently, we have played the role of the only remaining military superpower but due to our debt, we can no longer sustain that role. That may be welcome to many but it creates a lot of uncertainty about the future power balance in the world. For example, some of the acting out we see now from some countries, North Korea, Iran, and yes China, probably wouldn't be happening as much if the USA was still perceived to be as strong militarily as it was once was. Being "policeman" of the world is a heavy burden and a thankless one but I still think most of the world would be better off with the USA playing that role rather than a non-western country or no country. But I think that era is truly ending. Even the hubris of the US right wing can't really support that in real life anymore.

Edited August 14, 2010 by Jingthing

[wintermute]

The US has some serious structural problems. Recently, we have played the role of the only remaining military superpower but due to our debt, we can no longer sustain that role. That may be welcome to many but it creates a lot of uncertainty about the future power balance in the world.

America's debt is overstated based on size and productivity. America also has such a huge lead on defense technology and size of trained military personnel that it will be a long time before any credible conventional military can challenge it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_debt

Like I said..the EU is significantly more screwed in more ways than one. It will be interesting to see how they maneuver to secure their role in the future.

[wintermute]

T For example, some of the acting out we see now from some countries, North Korea, Iran, and yes China, probably wouldn't be happening as much if the USA was still perceived to be as strong militarily as it was once was. Being "policeman" of the world is a heavy burden and a thankless one but I still think most of the world would be better off with the USA playing that role rather than a non-western country or no country.

There was never a point in history where America's dominance was so strong that countries just fell in line automatically. The world police thing is a very recent invention mostly by the Bush administration. Prior to that there was always a big bloc of countries counterbalancing the U.S.

[Jingthing]

I agree with you the US is better positioned than Europe but that's not the same thing as saying the US is in a great position. It's in a difficult position. I also agree the US debt problem is solvable but that would involve the political will and BIPARTISAN action to solve it. I don't see that happening in the current American system, it seems crippled to me. An example to consider is Iran. There is a case to made that military action should be taken soon against Iran. In the past, the US would probably do this and feel they can afford to do this because it may need to be done. But not now, the US can't afford it and already overtaxed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Israel BTW is not fully capable militarily to pull this off, they can do a half measure but that would be quite bad.

Edited August 14, 2010 by Jingthing

[LaoPo]

Balderdash! China is very much interested in close ties with Latin American countries. It is happening already.

Sure, for commodities, not to seek for a military counterbalance. The USA would prevent so.

And, why wouldn't they want close ties with other countries, the same as EVERY western country does, abroad? Any objections ?

What more rights does the US have to show their powers in Asia ?

LaoPo

Edited August 14, 2010 by LaoPo

[wintermute]

An example to consider is Iran. There is a case to made that military action should be taken soon against Iran. In the past, the US would probably do this and feel they can afford to do this because it may need to be done. But not now, the US can't afford it and already overtaxed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Israel BTW is not fully capable militarily to pull this off, they can do a half measure but that would be quite bad.

Are you forgetting the Iran hostage crisis and the whole Iran revolution? America was literally powerless to do anything during that time except send in covert special ops which turned into a huge debacle. The communist bloc was an enormous counterbalance. Unilateral military action was impossible.

[Jingthing]

That's a good point but that was a hostage situation. The current situation does not involve any desire for total war with Iran; rather to target strategic locations of nuclear development. That may be impossible to do very well, and the best result that could be hoped for is to delay their program, but it still may happen. Of course the potential unintended consequences of such an action (by either Israel, the USA, or both) are very grim indeed.

[Abrak]

What more rights does the US have to show their powers in Asia ?

LaoPo

What I find so hard to believe is that Thailand lends money to the US. It bought US$20bn of USTs last year taking its holding up to US$50bn. And the US has screwed up far worse than Thailand in 1997 when the US I seem to remember refused to lend them a penny.

[wintermute]

That's a good point but that was a hostage situation. The current situation does not involve any desire for total war with Iran; rather to target strategic locations of nuclear development. That may be impossible to do very well, and the best result that could be hoped for is to delay their program, but it still may happen. Of course the potential unintended consequences of such an action (by either Israel, the USA, or both) are very grim indeed.

The Iran revolution was the major point I was trying to make. America was literally powerless to stop it from happening even with a western "puppet" in charge at the time.

The idea of there being unlimited global power for the U.S. until recent times is just a myth. The peak of U.S. authority was probably immediately post 2001 when most of the world was at least sympathetic since then the developing world has been catching up fast.

[LaoPo]

Being "policeman" of the world is a heavy burden and a thankless one but I still think most of the world would be better off with the USA playing that role rather than a non-western country or no country.

Who installed the policeman of the world?

The UN ?

LaoPo

[bonobo]

Last time.  Criticisms and praises of the USA are not at issue here.  So unless posts about the USA are connected with Chinese influence in SE Asia or with Thailand in specific, this thread will be closed.  

Of the last 10 posts, only one had Thailand or SE Asia as even an afterthought. Only two had China.

I realize that there are strong feelings on the subject of the USA, and the posts have been civil so far, but this is ThaiVisa.com, not USA.com, and threads in the general forum need to be Thai-related.

[wintermute]

To bring this back on topic...SE Asian nations are learning how to game this new system. Thailand has always straddled east and west pretty conveniently and managed to avoid most of the total destruction of colonialism and WW2. The other SE Asian nations are learning how to play the game at a high level.

For example.. Vietnam is doing what is logical and smart for the development of their nation. They are playing both sides efficiently and we're going to see more of that in the future. Singapore has said they will maintain good trilateral ties (EU,U.S.,China) without falling into one camp. Malaysia and Indonesia publicly support China while dealing with all comers.

There is no such thing as a U.S. bloc or China bloc. Everyone is playing the real politik game now. When politicians keep going back to cold war terms they are really just underestimating how much the world has been changing.

[Jingthing]

Well, I will quit this thread then. You can't really talk about China these days coherently without ALSO talking about the USA. I know I can't. Are you familiar with the term CHIMERICA?

[bonobo]

Well, I will quit this thread then. You can't really talk about China these days coherently without ALSO talking about the USA. I know I can't. Are you familiar with the term CHIMERICA?

It is probably best that you quit it then, if you can't relate anything US to China and its role in SE Asia.

[Ulysses G.]

He does not seem to be alone in having this problem.

[wintermute]

He does not seem to be alone in having this problem.

I tend to agree with Jing though. It really is impossible to discuss the broader SEA region without mentioning the impact both of the major countries have.

To be fair the article does mention both the U.S. and China...

[Ulysses G.]

He does not seem to be alone in having this problem.

I tend to agree with Jing though.

I tend to agree with many things he says, including his position on this whole matter, however, it is not up to us and bonobo is a fair mod indeed, so... :jap:

[LaoPo]

I also agree with afore speakers.

The OP topic is about the US, China and SE Asia. Those hemispheres together we're talking about some 2.3 Billion people.

SE Asia - a SUB-region of Asia- consists of the following countries:

BRUNEI - CAMBODIA - INDONESIA - LAOS - MALAYSIA - MYANMAR - PHILIPPINES - SINGAPORE - THAILAND - VIETNAM whilst officially EAST TIMOR belongs to SE Asia also but not being a member of ASEAN.

However, if the USA and/OR CHINA can't be mentioned the topic will be dead and we are gagged.

It is impossible to continue a civilized discussion, whether some of the members agree with one another or not.

LaoPo

[bonobo]

Let me clear this up.  Writing about the US is fine with respects to the question at hand.  However, previous posts made and some which have been deleted made comments such as "who made the policeman of the world," comments denigrating  Americans as sore losers, calling others either China bashers or China lovers, "The wet dreams some people have are amazing," US war dead in Vietnam, German war dead in WWII, whether there was a "surrender" signed in Vietnam, "inflated body counts" in Vietnam where South Vietnamese casualties were supposedly added to the count of Viet Cong dead, and so on and so forth. 

Many of the posts resulted in flamefests starting which have since been deleted.  

Writing about the USA, Europe, or wherever is fine--as it pertains to the thread and the fact that the general forum needs to be Thai-related.  Many of the posts here have done that.  But diverging in areas which will just lead to more flamefests with members being possibly suspended when they go too far is not to anyone's benefit.

The US lied about body counts in Vietnam:  not appropriate

The US lost credibility in SE Asia and China stepped into the vacuum:  appropriate.

I hope that is a little more clear.

[notime]

No the Chinese did not lose in Korea, they withdrew as neither the USSR or China wanted another WW.

And the US did not want to be involved directly with the USSR in the Vietman war because this would have happened if they decided to win.

With WW2 Great Britain and the Empire with the US had to win, there was no other option.

Agreed.

While all this speculation may be correct don't loose site of the big picture please. What is lost and what is win? North Korea is the biggest shit-hole on the planet with large parts of its population either starving or in concentration camps totally brainwashed and terrorized into submission. South enjoys freedom, wealth and prosperity. Where would you rather be? Just look at World At Night satellite picture of the earth to see North Korea as an absoulte dark hole (with Phongyag the only dot of light) comparing with the bright lights all around. So who lost and who won?

http://freemarketmojo.com/?p=524

[SailingHome]

Related, but perhaps a different subject... Who is giving China all that money (and jobs) to suck back in "cheap" goods? The American consumers. Who has sold nearly every major shipping port of it's homeland to China? The United States. So, who is really allied with who when the currency makes the real alliance?

Just thinking out loud.