It is not clear to me what US policy is attempting to achieve, other than it having some vague objective to 'keep China down' lest it threaten US paramountcy or US values (whatever those are these days). To paraphrase John Seeley, the US has lost its empire in east Asia in a fit of absence of mind.
If the Biden Administration is attempting some policy of containment, then it strikes me that it is far too late: China has largely healed the legacy of the Sino-Soviet split (though there are unresolved territorial issues on the left bank of the Amur); it has much of south-east Asia in its pocket, and it has retained close connections with Pakistan. Critically, it has also established a vast influence in Central Asia, effectively extending its border by another 7.6km to the west, and making it virtually impossible for Russia to exercise a policy in contradistinction to that of China, since its eastern borders are practically indefensible: this is arguably the great unspoken geopolitical transformation of the last generation. China has been happy for Putin to distract himself in the Caucasus and Ukraine whilst Russia has forfeited so much influence in Central Asia to the great benefit of China.
US influence in Europe is gravely impaired; for all that there is an Atlanticist residuum, it is no longer a key principle of many European foreign ministries, and it has lately taken a battering. The US has, too, woken up to the fact that in sponsoring a USE in the late 1940s, it has unwittingly created a commercial and strategic rival (although Washington had come to appreciate that even by the late 1950s, with the departments of Commerce and Defense starting to protest the more sympathetic attitude of the White House and State Department). In any event, Germany is unlikely to sanction action against China that would impair its export markets. France is relatively less sympathetic to China, and Macron's appeals to Putin have a distant echo of de Gaulle's vision of a Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals, shorn of American influence, and united against the rise of Asia, but the chances of Putin preferring Europe to China are relatively slender.
Therefore, if the US wishes to contain China it can really rely only upon India, Japan and the Philippines (although US-Filipino relations are not presently as warm as they were until last January). If the US loses the Philippines, it might as well abandon any pretensions to influence in south-east Asia or in the far east more generally. China has largely neutralised India by strengthening its position in Tibet and Sinkiang, and through the political penetration of Nepal and the commercial penetration of Myanmar, whilst retaining very cordial relations with Pakistan. That, then, leaves Japan. And that is not nearly enough if the Administration's presumed objectives are to be realised. There is therefore a risk that if the US is to retain influence in the Pacific, it will be largely liminal - in Australasia (though New Zealand is no longer to be taken for granted), and in Japan. China has also been very adept at promoting its influence in the small island states of the Pacific as these were left in the lurch by the British and Australasians.
Blinkin is not offering anything new. Simply because, he is NOT a fresh look at foreign policy. He is trying to re-establish what it was before Trump. He keeps talking about US-EU cooperation, the same way that it was.. i.e.,, EU follows the US-foreign policy. Help the US to Blow up ME-countries and call that Unity. We are still bombing anyone we don't like. Granted, Plenty of "diversity non-sense" in the ranks. An AA is pulling the trigger.
In regard to China, there has been plenty of talk since the early days of Trump, but no serious actions. The trade surplus has been going up at a faster rate. Big companies here have operations in China and they care about their investments, even if it is at the expense to the industry that is still here. Trump himself paid 100K in taxes in China and zip here. (during one of his 4-years as the prez.).
A major shift in our foreign policy can only come, once we stop being the baseball bat for Bibi (or the new guys, and the Neo-Cons) in the ME and actually focusing on what we need to compete with China.
"[T]he Biden team, [] has to unravel a web of policies that in many ways disrupted decades of US global leadership in four short years...a strong US at home can better engage the world by countering global challenges and pursuing policies that promote American values – good global governance, human rights and cooperation on issues such as global health and the climate crisis will benefit Americans."
1) The US often undermines the UN -- the most democratic "global governance" entity on the planet (certainly more democratic than NATO or the oligarchic G7).
2) The US concern over human rights is so selective (aka hypocritical) that to call this such concern and "American value" is outrageous and demonstrable propaganda.
3) The US has been one of the primary forces at all global climate change negotiations insisting that all agreements be non-binding.
For that matter, what evidence is there that Biden really wants to unravel any web of policies that hamper progress where intransigence works for the big money that props up the status quo?
Got to talk up some sort of enemy to keep that sweet, sweet cash flowing into the coffers of the merchants of death. Unusual to have to make it the main nation that does all your industrial manufacturing though. It will end messily.
It is about time that Biden and Blinken realize a simple fact: attacking China verbally or using propaganda methods actually strengthens China.
All the attacks by Trump and now Biden staff has actually united ordinary Chinese people behind the communist party almost completely, thus covering any flaws and internal problems that the communist party has.
With almost full support, the communist party can now play the long game with USA and ignore any short term pain this might cause, and frankly, time is not on the side of USA.
United States is worried not so much about authoritarian regimes (it befriends plenty of those and refuses to hold such and similar regimes to account (Sisi's Egypt, MBS's KSA, Modi's regime in India, MBZ's UAE, Israel, etc), or about rules based order (hurls abuse at the ICC, refuses to ratify UNCLOS, refuses to follow ICJ rulings on Chagos), as it is about losing its perch in what it calls the Into-Pacific, and more generally the world. It is worried, extremely worried, about being just another great power; and cannot get around to stating that as its real problem.
The answer to the proverbial question: "Mirror, mirror, on the wall — who's the fairest of them all?" is at best ambiguous for the United States
China is not a military threat to America and I wonder why America is obsessed with China. China has no bases anywhere in the world unlike America which has many in Europe and Asia. China has become an economic power and has reduced poverty considerably. I hope it becomes more democratic one day, but that is not the reason why America is pushing others to stand against China.In a few years, China will be the largest economy in the world. We have to live with that. Once America encircled USSR and tried to finance others to annoy USSR. That policy is being practiced against China.
The US has no moral authority whatsoever. The graveyard they've made of the Middle East under both Dems and Republicans is the only the most recent example, but the chaos they caused in South America and, of course, South- East Asia, makes a mockery of their claims to humanitarian righteousness.
Blinken’s charm offensive in Europe highlights a key US concern: China
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jul/01/blinken-charm-offensive-europe-us-china
It is not clear to me what US policy is attempting to achieve, other than it having some vague objective to 'keep China down' lest it threaten US
paramountcy or US values (whatever those are these days). To paraphrase John Seeley, the US has lost its empire in east Asia in a fit of absence of mind.
If the Biden Administration is attempting some policy of containment, then
it strikes me that it is far too late: China has largely healed the legacy
of the Sino-Soviet split (though there are unresolved territorial issues on the left bank of the Amur); it has much of south-east Asia in its pocket,
and it has retained close connections with Pakistan. Critically, it has also established a vast influence in Central Asia, effectively extending its
border by another 7.6km to the west, and making it virtually impossible for Russia to exercise a policy in contradistinction to that of China, since its eastern borders are practically indefensible: this is arguably the great
unspoken geopolitical transformation of the last generation. China has been happy for Putin to distract himself in the Caucasus and Ukraine whilst
Russia has forfeited so much influence in Central Asia to the great benefit of China.
US influence in Europe is gravely impaired; for all that there is an
Atlanticist residuum, it is no longer a key principle of many European
foreign ministries, and it has lately taken a battering. The US has, too,
woken up to the fact that in sponsoring a USE in the late 1940s, it has
unwittingly created a commercial and strategic rival (although Washington
had come to appreciate that even by the late 1950s, with the departments of Commerce and Defense starting to protest the more sympathetic attitude of
the White House and State Department). In any event, Germany is unlikely to sanction action against China that would impair its export markets. France
is relatively less sympathetic to China, and Macron's appeals to Putin have a distant echo of de Gaulle's vision of a Europe from the Atlantic to the
Urals, shorn of American influence, and united against the rise of Asia, but the chances of Putin preferring Europe to China are relatively slender.
Therefore, if the US wishes to contain China it can really rely only upon
India, Japan and the Philippines (although US-Filipino relations are not
presently as warm as they were until last January). If the US loses the
Philippines, it might as well abandon any pretensions to influence in south-east Asia or in the far east more generally. China has largely neutralised
India by strengthening its position in Tibet and Sinkiang, and through the
political penetration of Nepal and the commercial penetration of Myanmar,
whilst retaining very cordial relations with Pakistan. That, then, leaves
Japan. And that is not nearly enough if the Administration's presumed
objectives are to be realised. There is therefore a risk that if the US is
to retain influence in the Pacific, it will be largely liminal - in
Australasia (though New Zealand is no longer to be taken for granted), and
in Japan. China has also been very adept at promoting its influence in the
small island states of the Pacific as these were left in the lurch by the
British and Australasians.
Game, set and match to China, for the time being.
Blinkin is not offering anything new. Simply because, he is NOT a fresh look at foreign policy. He is trying to re-establish what it was before Trump.
He keeps talking about US-EU cooperation, the same way that it was.. i.e.,, EU follows the US-foreign policy. Help the US to Blow up ME-countries and
call that Unity. We are still bombing anyone we don't like. Granted, Plenty of "diversity non-sense" in the ranks. An AA is pulling the trigger.
In regard to China, there has been plenty of talk since the early days of
Trump, but no serious actions. The trade surplus has been going up at a
faster rate. Big companies here have operations in China and they care about their investments, even if it is at the expense to the industry that is
still here. Trump himself paid 100K in taxes in China and zip here. (during one of his 4-years as the prez.).
A major shift in our foreign policy can only come, once we stop being the
baseball bat for Bibi (or the new guys, and the Neo-Cons) in the ME and
actually focusing on what we need to compete with China.
This is hard to swallow:
"[T]he Biden team, [] has to unravel a web of policies that in many ways
disrupted decades of US global leadership in four short years...a strong US at home can better engage the world by countering global challenges and
pursuing policies that promote American values – good global governance,
human rights and cooperation on issues such as global health and the climate crisis will benefit Americans."
1) The US often undermines the UN -- the most democratic "global governance" entity on the planet (certainly more democratic than NATO or the oligarchic G7).
2) The US concern over human rights is so selective (aka hypocritical) that to call this such concern and "American value" is outrageous and
demonstrable propaganda.
3) The US has been one of the primary forces at all global climate change
negotiations insisting that all agreements be non-binding.
For that matter, what evidence is there that Biden really wants to unravel
any web of policies that hamper progress where intransigence works for the
big money that props up the status quo?
Got to talk up some sort of enemy to keep that sweet, sweet cash flowing
into the coffers of the merchants of death. Unusual to have to make it the
main nation that does all your industrial manufacturing though. It will end messily.
It is about time that Biden and Blinken realize a simple fact: attacking
China verbally or using propaganda methods actually strengthens China.
All the attacks by Trump and now Biden staff has actually united ordinary
Chinese people behind the communist party almost completely, thus covering
any flaws and internal problems that the communist party has.
With almost full support, the communist party can now play the long game
with USA and ignore any short term pain this might cause, and frankly, time is not on the side of USA.
A very fair assessment I would say.
United States is worried not so much about authoritarian regimes (it
befriends plenty of those and refuses to hold such and similar regimes to
account (Sisi's Egypt, MBS's KSA, Modi's regime in India, MBZ's UAE, Israel, etc), or about rules based order (hurls abuse at the ICC, refuses to ratify UNCLOS, refuses to follow ICJ rulings on Chagos), as it is about losing its perch in what it calls the Into-Pacific, and more generally the world. It
is worried, extremely worried, about being just another great power; and
cannot get around to stating that as its real problem.
The answer to the proverbial question: "Mirror, mirror, on the wall — who's the fairest of them all?" is at best ambiguous for the United States
China is not a military threat to America and I wonder why America is
obsessed with China. China has no bases anywhere in the world unlike America which has many in Europe and Asia. China has become an economic power and
has reduced poverty considerably. I hope it becomes more democratic one day, but that is not the reason why America is pushing others to stand against
China.In a few years, China will be the largest economy in the world. We
have to live with that. Once America encircled USSR and tried to finance
others to annoy USSR. That policy is being practiced against China.
The US has no moral authority whatsoever. The graveyard they've made of the Middle East under both Dems and Republicans is the only the most recent
example, but the chaos they caused in South America and, of course, South-
East Asia, makes a mockery of their claims to humanitarian righteousness.
It's an arsonist disguised as a fireman.