U.S.-China Strategic Distrust

[Sasaki Kojiro]

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2012/0330_china_lieberthal/0330_china_lieberthal.pdf

Very interesting reading...

1) The authors suggest several things the US should do to increase trust. But the description of China given is of a very paranoid, conspiracy theorist infested country...can we really say that things that should increase trust actually will? If not, are we doomed to ever increasing distrust?
2) I suppose obama vs romney on this can stick to the other thread, but how heavy do you think the candidates attitude towards China and competency in such things should weigh in choosing whether to vote for them?

[Papewaio]

Stay friendly with Australia and we will help you out with making friends with China. ;)

[Fragony]

Stay friendly with Australia and we will help you out with making friends with China. ;)

By stationing US soldiers? Doubt they like that

[gaelic cowboy]

By stationing US soldiers? Doubt they like that

Doesnt matter if they like it or not sure all the hippies will be living on the far side of that rather large desert continent.

[CountArach]

By stationing US soldiers? Doubt they like that
We have a new foreign minister who said this (http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/carr-assures-us-official-of-friendly-intentions-20120323-1vpul.html):

While Mr Carr supported the decision to put a rotating deployment of US marines in the Northern Territory, he advised the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, to resist any invitation from the US President to join America in economic rivalry against China.

"America is a natural ally, but it has a political system loaded with pathologies," Mr Carr wrote. "Tell the President politely we are not signing up to a mindless anti-China campaign. The alliance does not require it."

Yesterday Mr Carr and Dr Campbell spoke about a perception of a rising hostility between the US and China.

Dr Campbell said: "I made clear that the US has to be more effective in conveying our desire for a nuanced and sophisticated relationship with China, and to engage the Australian public in this matter."

For his part, Mr Carr said: "I mentioned to him that continuity was the key feature of our foreign policy.
Now whether or not he lives up to this is another question, but there is hope.

[rvg]

I think that in the event of China's rapid ascension to the top of the world's food chain we might find an unlikely ally in Russia. As much of a threat that China might pose to us, it would pose even more of a threat to the Russians.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

We have a new foreign minister who said this (http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/carr-assures-us-official-of-friendly-intentions-20120323-1vpul.html):
While Mr Carr supported the decision to put a rotating deployment of US marines in the Northern Territory, he advised the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, to resist any invitation from the US President to join America in economic rivalry against China.

"America is a natural ally, but it has a political system loaded with pathologies," Mr Carr wrote. "Tell the President politely we are not signing up to a mindless anti-China campaign. The alliance does not require it."

Yesterday Mr Carr and Dr Campbell spoke about a perception of a rising hostility between the US and China.

Dr Campbell said: "I made clear that the US has to be more effective in conveying our desire for a nuanced and sophisticated relationship with China, and to engage the Australian public in this matter."

For his part, Mr Carr said: "I mentioned to him that continuity was the key feature of our foreign policy.
Now whether or not he lives up to this is another question, but there is hope.

The West is in a state of Cold War with China, frankly I can't understand why the Allies didn't place a complete embargo on Chinese goods and starve their economy a decade ago. I don't fancy an actual shooting war with Chine but it remains a fact that we are economically and ideaologically opposed to each other. Trying to avoid conflict is as pointless as trying to appease Stalin was.

[gaelic cowboy]

The West is in a state of Cold War with China, frankly I can't understand why the Allies didn't place a complete embargo on Chinese goods and starve their economy a decade ago. I don't fancy an actual shooting war with Chine but it remains a fact that we are economically and ideaologically opposed to each other. Trying to avoid conflict is as pointless as trying to appease Stalin was.

The West still traded with Soviet Union during the cold war there problem was there currency was not convertible, they literally needed to export say tractors for Irish beef.

So taking today then China must export goods in order buy other countries currency so they can afford to buy more exports from China cos the Renminbi is not tradeable or at least not as easy to trade as Dollars, Euro or Pounds.

If you wanna stop China tomorrow dont let the London banks become experts in trading the Renminbi like there agitating to do right now.

[rajpoot]

Distrust between countries with such difference in ideologies and conflicted interests is inevitable.
I cannot talk about other theaters but by what we know over here, China supports Pakistan to keep pressure on India. USA (let's be honest) does not like Pakistan all that much, and neither does it like other countries flexing their muscle with such insolence.

Question is can USA stop China? For that matter can anyone stop China? I doubt it. The only solution is to come to terms and hope that eventually China will mature and soften some of it's hardline policies which bother everyone so much.

[Fragony]

The West is in a state of Cold War with China, frankly I can't understand why the Allies didn't place a complete embargo on Chinese goods and starve their economy a decade ago. I don't fancy an actual shooting war with Chine but it remains a fact that we are economically and ideaologically opposed to each other. Trying to avoid conflict is as pointless as trying to appease Stalin was.

They can drop the dollar, byebye. China is Russia's problem mostly as long as we buy their stuff, Russian territories are already in Chinese in the schoolbooks

'may you live in interesting times' <- Chinese proverb

[Sasaki Kojiro]

We should be trying to make friends with China, instead of this knee-jerk crap. China has historically valid reasons to distrust the west, but we have no reason to distrust them other than xenophobia and perhaps fear of the unknown.


You think the authors of the paper are full of it??

[rvg]

If we don't make friends with them, it won't end well.

Awww, it'll be fine. We should just yank their chain every once in a while by selling some top notch weapons to Taiwan. Besides, what really makes us strong is the fact that we're not alone, we have allies, even friends. Can't say the same for China.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

hmm I haven't heard much anti-china stuff, and it seems like whenever people bring up china's rise they just want an improvement in the US situation. Our sense of superiority is based on things like civil liberties and is 100% true (whatever tellos says about SOPA ;).

I don't buy "historically valid reasons to distrust the west". Historically valid reasons come with an expiration date. Europe doesn't have historically valid reasons to distrust germany.

**************



CBS News Poll. Nov. 6-10, 2011. N=1,182 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.









.



"Do you consider China an ally of the United States, friendly but not an ally, unfriendly, or an enemy of the United States?"









.





Ally
Friendly
Unfriendly
Enemy
Unsure




%
%
%
%
%



11/6-10/11
11
48
20
12
9



7/31 - 8/5/08
7
60
15
8
10



4/4-5/01
5
44
33
11
7








.



"Do you think the recent economic expansion of China has been generally good for the U.S. economy, or bad for the U.S. economy, or had no effect on the U.S. economy?"









.





Good
Bad
No effect
Unsure





%
%
%
%




11/6-10/11
15
61
12
12









.



"Do you think China's military is a major threat to the security of the United States, a minor threat, or not a threat?"









.





Major threat
Minor threat
Not a threat
Unsure





%
%
%
%




11/6-10/11
25
42
26
7




http://www.pollingreport.com/china.htm

Not sure how to interpret the numbers, but it doesn't seem like a majority are very anti-china.

[Vladimir]

We have a new foreign minister who said this (http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/carr-assures-us-official-of-friendly-intentions-20120323-1vpul.html):

While Mr Carr supported the decision to put a rotating deployment of US marines in the Northern Territory, he advised the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, to resist any invitation from the US President to join America in economic rivalry against China.

"America is a natural ally, but it has a political system loaded with pathologies," Mr Carr wrote. "Tell the President politely we are not signing up to a mindless anti-China campaign. The alliance does not require it."

Yesterday Mr Carr and Dr Campbell spoke about a perception of a rising hostility between the US and China.

Dr Campbell said: "I made clear that the US has to be more effective in conveying our desire for a nuanced and sophisticated relationship with China, and to engage the Australian public in this matter."

For his part, Mr Carr said: "I mentioned to him that continuity was the key feature of our foreign policy.
Now whether or not he lives up to this is another question, but there is hope.

Your new foreign minister sounds like, as Clarkson would put it, a right :daisy:. The right honorable, nuanced, and sophisticated minister should brush up on his diplomatic skills.

What's happening over there? First you get that :daisy: of a prime minister now this. I really love Ozzies but something's changed. Is it teh eval Muslims?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I suppose that is a good point. Is it fair though? Can you really compare Germany and China? Or any country in Europe to China? Germany has always been an integral part of Europe, and Europe as a whole--quite honestly--is more of a fair comparison to China in terms of scope. European wars may as well be Chinese civil wars. Or is that unreasonable?

No, comparing Germany and China, while not an ideal comparison, makes more sense than comparing Chin and Europe. The vast amjority of the Chinese population are ethnic Han Chinese, they speak Cantonese. China had been unified (excepting civil wars) for most of the last 2000 years, while Europe has never been unified, and even when it was under the Romans most of "Germany" was on the outside.

China is an alien, not merely foriegn, place. We will never be friends with China unless we become a lot more like them, or them like us. True, cosmetically China seems to be adopting Western mores but in reality the change is cosmetic and the result of a lack of internal producers of luxury goods.

Consider the difference between Chinese and Western thinking on things like politics, authority, education, intellectual property or even just how to invent things. All different, we have a tenth as much in common with the Chinese as we do with, say, the Iranians.

Cuddling up to China is fantasy, we should be looking to contain Chinese power, purely for our own benefit and safety.

[a completely inoffensive name]

True, cosmetically China seems to be adopting Western mores but in reality the change is cosmetic

I feel that you should defend this statement more since it seems to be the main assumption behind your argument.

[Papewaio]

Australia has a trade surplus with China.

Our previous PM learnt Mandarin in Taiwan.

A previous defense minister stated that Australia would not automatically fight for USA if China and USA fought over Taiwan. It would have to depend on the circumstances and who started it and for what reason.

=][=

China will grow, mature and interact better internally and externally as its per capita wealth expands and as long as that wealth is distributed (not evenly, just not isolated).

What a modern healthy China?
Trade with it and help all it's people live a better life. China will reciprocate.

Their kids live shopping, pc games, cars, food and education too.

Sure they have a different political system but they have the same needs and wants.

[Papewaio]

If I said the national language of UK is French what weight would you put on my assessment of the culture of UK?

[CountArach]

Your new foreign minister sounds like, as Clarkson would put it, a right :daisy:. The right honorable, nuanced, and sophisticated minister should brush up on his diplomatic skills.
He wrote that before he became a minister.

What's happening over there? First you get that :daisy: of a prime minister now this. I really love Ozzies but something's changed. Is it teh eval Muslims?
Our current Prime Minister isn't too bad, IMO, she just lost alot of the principles that she held before becoming PM. The opposition is a big part of the problem - absolute morons... who are likely to win the next election.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

lol, I looked up his blog post and his "political system loaded with pathologies" comment was referring to the republican primary debates. FAIR ENOUGH

A response to the article in the OP:

http://www.informationdissemination.net/2012/04/looking-at-recent-article-on-uschina.html


The relationship between China and America has been characterized by many as complex. Even with the bitter partisanship in Washington, most democrats and republicans seem to have no problem looking at China as a threat and using China as a scapegoat for economic problems in America. I think it's also quite clear that the US military views China as its most likely foe in the future regardless of how many confidence building measures are proposed. Of course, the Chinese government officially try to avoid overly confrontational language, even though PLA generals and Global Time often voice strong opposition to America.

Recently, I read this article where it talks about how people in the Chinese ruling elite really feel about America. Here are a few really interesting snippet:



The senior leadership of the Chinese government increasingly views the competition between the United States and China as a zero-sum game, with China the likely long-range winner if the American economy and domestic political system continue to stumble


China views the United States as a declining power, but at the same time believes that Washington is trying to fight back to undermine, and even disrupt, the economic and military growth that point to China’s becoming the world’s most powerful country


the authors say the level of strategic distrust between the two countries has become so corrosive that if not corrected the countries risk becoming open antagonists.


In contrast, China has mounting self-confidence in its own economic and military strides, particularly the closing power gap since the start of the Iraq war. In 2003, he argues, America’s gross domestic product was eight times as large as China’s, but today it is less than three times larger.


the Chinese leadership, backed by the domestic news media and the education system, believes that China’s turn in the world has arrived, and that it is the United States that is “on the wrong side of history.”


China’s financial successes, starting with weathering the 1998 Asian financial crisis and the 2008 global financial crisis, the execution of events like the Beijing Olympics in 2008 and the Shanghai Expo in 2010, contrast with America’s “alarming” deficit, sluggish economic recovery and polarized domestic politics

None of these above views are surprising, since I've read all of these view points from different sources and at least partially agree with most of the above points. It's particularly hard to address all of them, so I hope I don't go completely off track with my thoughts here. I think this is an extremely important topic. I know this can be a sensitive topic and most of my views are probably not popular, but I can only state how I see things. I do apologize in advance if I offend anyone.

The first question is whether or not US is a declining power. I think if we compare where US is right now to where it was at the collapse of Soviet Union, there is no question that it has declined. More than anything else, I think the two prolonged wars in Middle East that are operated completely on debts have really accelerated the American decline. In the coming years, I think it will decline further when compared against the rising economies of China, India and Brazil. In several areas like financial prowess and manufacturing power, China has already caught up or surpassed America. In other areas like military, higher education/research and cultural influence, it's hard to see when China will ever catch up to America. The areas that China will likely to gain ground on America in the coming years is the overall economy and political influence around the world. Another thing to consider is that American allies in the Western world are also on the decline due to debts issues, decreasing productivity and population decline. So if we just look at the current economic and finance situation in America and the rest of the Western world, it would seem like China (and other rising powers like India and Brazil) are poised to take over.

The second question is whether or not the China is actually ready to take over from America. I think the answer to this is no. A lot of times, we are blinded by the 30+ years of economic growth in China and fail to see the problems in the country. The problems that China and America face are quite different. America is facing huge debts problems from years of excessive public and private sector spending. American Federal, state and municipal governments faces much financial problem in the coming years related to the runaway health care, social security and public sector pension costs. China's government is not burdened by these excessive public sector spending problems, but it faces a lot more social problems. I have always that pollution and corruption are China's biggest problems. Now, I have to add two more to the list: the extreme male/female population imbalance and the increasingly unsustainable wealth gap between the rich and the poor. The first problem results in a lot of frustrated single men, large prostitution industry and escalating home prices (from women demanding owning home before marriage), Having a lot of frustrated single men have historically been a really bad social situation (more conflict and wars). The second problem is exaggerated by the absolute wastefulness of many rich Chinese people and how these people made their money in the first place. These people make Wall Street bankers look like Mother Theresa's. So even though China has gotten a lot wealthier, there are serious social tension within the country toward the wealthy and the corrupted officials that are further exaggerated by frustration over male/female imbalance, lack of free speech, inflation and very polluted environment. The Chinese government really has more things to worry about at home. On top of all of this, China's banks and local governments are also grappling with debt problems from all of the recent economically unfeasible public sector projects. I think the Western bank and public sector debt problems are larger, but China's debt problems are ready to explode too. The Chinese leadership would be making a huge mistake if it overestimates itself and underestimates America.

The third question is whether or not America is really trying to hold back China. I think the answer to this is yes. China's goal is to create a multi-polar world where it assumes regional hegemony. American goal is to remain as the sole superpower in a unipolar world where no other country establishes local hegemony. Clearly, the two countries have different political goals and will clash against each other. Currently, this is playing out in South East Asia where China is trying to achieve regional hegemony, but America has managed to inject itself back into the region and prevent that. I think this will continue to play out in the future as long as the two nations have such polar opposite political vision. I think that once India grows powerful enough, it will also clash with America on the very same issues. Just think about what would happen if India becomes confident enough to assert its own view points on countries like Iran, Afghanistan and demand greater say in energy coming out of the Middle East.

The fourth question is whether or not this is a zero sum game. I think the answer is yes and no. The two countries can obviously work together to address a lot of the security threats that we face today. At the same time, China cannot achieve regional hegemony with America around nor can it be part of a multi-polar world without America loosing influence. There is also the scenario where both country looses influence if the social problems in China blows up and the debts problems in America blows up. We are already seeing EU declining significantly in the recent years due to its financial and debts problems. The other part of the zero sum game is economy. In the near term, the two countries need each other to have continued economic growth. If one country suffers a large slow down, it will have large affect on the other country. As I've said in the past, a trade war would have crippling effects on both countries. In the long term, I think it is somewhat of a zero sum game. The world has finite natural resources and energy sources. As we approach peak oil, the cost of energy will simply grow higher and higher. If all of the countries are battling for the same finite resources to keep economy going, then they will clearly be in competition with each other. We already see some of that with China signing deals around the world for oil reserves and mining rights to different natural resources. This is another area where India will also really be competing with China and America on. Just imagine the energy and natural resource demand of China and India if they all seek to live the same quality of life as Americans. As the world population expands, we will also be battling over basic necessities like water and food.

In the end of the day, I think both countries face a lot of challenges ahead. In their current path, China and America clearly has confrontation world view, but that may change in the future. If China goes through a period of social instability or economic meltdown, who knows how its foreign policy will change. Looking at its 5000 years of history, China has always been a country that concentrated on itself. If America goes through anything close to Greece style debts crisis, I think that would have to cutback on its role in the world affairs. I think India will be a very large player in the future as its population and economy continues to grow. I think Brazil will also have a very strong voice in the future, whereas countries like Japan, UK and the rest of EU will continue to be in decline. In 15 years, we won't just be talking about a G2 kind of world. With energy and natural resources become increasingly scarce, we could see conflicts over them in the future. More than anything, I think that's where I see the highest possibility of a major future conflict.

Comments thread is generally critical...

The article is interesting, and your reaction is understandable, however both you and the chinese leadership are wrong on all but one point. First, where you're right. Of course the United States is in relative decline. But that is not necessarily a bad thing. India, Brazil, China, and Indonesia are huge countries, and their success and healthy development at home make us more secure, not less secure. As more people around the globe enter the middle class, the dividend that they earn from peaceful relationships with the US increases, as does the political power that they can exercise to maintain the peaceful status quo.

Now where you're wrong. First, China is nowhere near surpassing the US in either financial or manufacturing prowess. Chinese finance is a joke. The four major chinese state run banks are unsophisticated and grow only because they are wards of the state. Investment in china and chinese financial markets are relatively primitive because of the unpredictable legal environment, extremely stringent capital controls, and the general shadiness of the business environment. Chinese manufacturers can assemble alot of ipads, but China does not produce the complex components that make up those iPads - that task is left to high tech facilities in Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, and Japan. Chinese advanced manufacturing is unable to produce advanced jet engines, and cannot even produce good copies of stolen Russian designs. The only Chinese brand that most Americans recognize is Lenova, and China had to buy Lenovo's business from IBM. But its not like the Chinese shoved IBM aside - IBM decided to exit the PC manufacturing business to focus on higher-tech, higher-margin businesses, such as tech consulting. IBM has no brands in the Interbrand list of the world's top 100. The US has over 50, including all of the top 10. Global innovators around the world restrict their business operations in China because they know that their sensitive information will be stolen. Private Chinese companies that innovate and take market share from state owned behemoths are smashed and have their technology stolen by the same government that purportedly fosters a "managed capitalism". Of course it is nothing of the sort - China's economy is dominated by slow, witless state owned firms. This includes its defense industry.

You entirely ignore the critical role that political stability plays in the development and, most important, maintenance of global power. It is tempting to think of the US as 'unstable' given the harsh nature of our politics, but the past month has seen China enveloped in rumor and political uncertainty at a level far greater than anything faced in the US in many generations. China deposed an extremely powerful man who was in line for the 9 member politburo, and what followed were weeks of rumors about coups, murdered officials, and clashing ideologies, and behind the scenes power struggles. Searches for words like Ferrari were banned (there was a rumor about a ferrari crash that supposedly killed a high ranking official's child). This sort of instability is bad for business and bad for international power projection (who wants to make deals with a government that has uncertain internal support?).

Will China's wealth and power increase? Yes, but from an extremely low starting point (Russia, for instance, is actually much wealthier than China on a per capita basis, and has a very strong domestic industrial base compared to China (again viewed in relative terms that take into account population differences and product mix). You mention that China isn't ready to take over for the US in the areas of education and culture, China has shown no ability to challenge US dominance in

You focus on American social spending and the problem of excessive debt, but not on the inverse problem that exists in China, which despite its communist pretentions has absolutely no social safety net. Chinese consumers have no social security (not the program, the literal meaning) and are constantly at risk of going bankrupt if they become sick or if a family member who contributes to the household's bottom line unexpectedly dies. This greatly depresses the ability of Chinese consumers to deploy capital in a way that improves the economy of the country and their lives - inflation is high so they can't keep their money in banks that pay the low state-mandated interest rates, so they spend money on fixed investments like homes. This has the short term effect of creating a housing bubble and a construction/raw materials boom in China, but the end result is a housing bubble much like our own only financed by savings and not debt. While this setup would seem to be superior, when the bubble pops the lost wealth will have a similar impact. Regarding our debt, and the widely held perception that we need China to purchase our debt and as such are dependent upon them, in fact the opposite is true. Investors, including sovereigns such as China, are always hungry for bulletproof instruments in which to park their money, and US T-bills are far and away the best candidate for this type of investment. Furthermore, in order to maintain an artificially low Yuan-Dollar exchange rate teh Chinese are FORCED to buy treasury bills and treasury notes. Without a steady stream of American dollar denominated debt instruments the Yuan would rise and Chinese competiveness would diminish.

You also pay little attention to China's compromised global position. Who are China's friends? Aside from a few rogue regimes like Venazuela, Iran and North Korea, I can't think of many actual allies. Conversely, China is surrounded by enemies, most of whom are either aligned with or expressly allied with the US. Russia views China warily, India is much more in the US orbit (and fought border wars with China during the last half century), southeast asian countries (even vietnam and myanmar!!!) are turning away from China and towards the US in order to halt aggressive resource-driven actions by China in the South China Sea and elsewhere in the reason, and Korea and Japan are home to thousands of American troops, hundreds of advanced US planes, and dozens of advanced US ships and subs. The Chinese are literally surrounded by countries with whom they do not have true alliances.

And the picture looking forward looks bright for America. Chinese students enroll in our universities, even universities that we don't consider elite, in droves, because American universities offer the best opportunities in the world. Chinese filmgoers seem American films and listen to music that is heavily influenced by American (and, to be fair, British) pop and hip hop. America sets the world security agenda (see, e.g., Iraq, Iran, and Libya). The American military spends 43% of the total spent on militaries by every country in the world, and combined with her allies comprises at least two thirds of world GDP spent on defense. American companies lead the way in the sectors that are driving innovation. Facebook, Google, Microsoft, IBM, HP, Cisco, Twitter, Apple, Yahoo, Oracle, Boeing - hell even Ford and GM are growing and taking back global market share from overseas competitors. We may have problems, but we live in a liberal (classicly speaking) democracy with virtually no corruption, a predictable and highly functional judicial system, high levels of internal security, strong social supports, a vibrant culture, a growing and well balanced population, and a well defined national identity that at its best embraces optimism and pluralism over nationalism, isolationism and pessimism. We speak the language of world business (don't discount the tremendous advantage that speaking english confers), and we write using the symbols most common even amongst other prominent languages. We print the world's reserve currency (which is inflating at a much slower rate than China's currency). We have military alliances with most of the world's other great powers. We control the seas and the skies. We are, in short, in an extraordinarily dominant position and well placed to stay there, and just because our share of global wealth will shrink somewhat as other nations prosper does not mean that we must weep at our misfortune and decline, and gird for a war in the east.

[Papewaio]

Once energy costs reach high enough people will embrace nuclear, hydrogen powered cars and more wind and solar.

Peak oil is peak of sweet light crude. It is not peak of all oil let alone energy sources.

Add in uranium breeder reactors, thorium salt reactors and micro reactors to supply base energy levels. Then add in high energy batteries to make the best use of sporadic wind and solar and you have plenty of viable alternatives.

The country that will best increase it's standard of living will be the one that can make best use of energy sources and farmland.

BTW USA has lots of fresh water... That is a huge advantage that is so often under estimated. Essentially USA and Australia are the same size countries. Australia has plenty of resources except not enough water.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Then add in high energy batteries to make the best use of sporadic wind and solar and you have plenty of viable alternatives.

Still got a long way until we have batteries that are on the same energy density level as gasoline and even longer until we have batteries that can sustain the demand of cities.

[Papewaio]

That's why I believe in nuclear energy to provide for our base load.

[HopAlongBunny]

A healthy distrust is a good thing. Neither is naive enough to believe that the other embraces its interests in full. Hopefully this will continue to expand and deepen the dialogue between them.

The expansion of yet another oil-based economy has to be good news for the oil/gas industry. Diversification of energy sources is a wise choice for everyone involved. Even if you think global warming/peak oil is bafflegab, the fact is the best way to avoid conflict over energy is to have options. Whoever gets that "right" will come out on top.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Anyway, I want to go after what seems like the main question to me...

I'm reading a german history book right now and I'm on the pro-world war one section where he discusses how germany could have had an alliance with britain. He makes repeated references to the mistrust of britain among the germans (especially the general public)...they saw themselves as an up and coming industrial power and interpreted Britain's actions as fearful, jealous, intent on keeping them down, etc. It seems like an obvious parallel to China/US.

So, sure we have no reason to be hostile, and their growth is a good thing. But if they have this world view, and see (for example) talk about global warming as a western plot to keep them from industrializing, are conciliatory gestures actually worth a damn? When it seems like an obvious temptation for china's leaders to blame any failings on western malevolence? Is there any reason to think that our actions aimed at improving trust will have any positive effect?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Is it an invalid world view if its true? They don't us an apology.

But it isn't. We don't have to deal in hypotheticals.

How many of the examples from the article do you think are actually true?

[HopAlongBunny]

How many of the examples from the article do you think are actually true?

Strictly true? Likely none.

The external "whipping boy" is a feature of all governments! In Canada and the US our respective media's are full of all sorts of B.S. about each other when it is useful to the gov't of the day. "Terrorists leaking through a porous Canadian border!" is one I have great affection for :) A recent flap over the oil pipeline is another good example: Canadian politicians leaping forward to "influence a positive outcome"...like they have any influence at all. It will happen because its good business and strategically smart, or not at all.

When the political conditions change, then depending on the context of whatever B.S. was put forward, its either: See! We were right they really are bastards!!; or;
"candidates name" hard work and vigilance has brought about a positive outcome!

"Truth" is a vanishingly small part of any gov't discourse; w/o effort it is non-existent at the level of the society.