Readers’ Responses to Our Question (48)

It's a rather naive and unrealistic idea to think that China would take up a more active role in promoting international security. To understand China's position on international issues, I believe one has to understand the complex and profound mentality of the Chinese tradition. In its long and glorious history, China has always been a symbol of continental imperialism. Its vast territory and regions that contain more than 50 tribes underlines the ruling notion of supression and unity. And the art of division has been the major tactic for the Han tribe, which ruled China throughout most of the dynasties in the past 5000 years, in dealing with its diverse foreign neighbors.

In the six-party talk, Beijing's main goal was never to stop North Korea's nuclear ambition but to gain leverage by playing upon the disagreement and contradiction between Japan and South Korea, and at the same time establishing its overwhelming significance in the region through controlling the energy pipeline of Kim's appalling regime. The Chinese only wanted the deal to be made on their term rather than achieving a consensus, in other words, Kim should cave in only when Beijing wants him to. As far as the Chinese are concerned, they never wanted the talk let alone allowing Japan, America and Russia meddling in its business.

But why the lukewarm response to Kim's madness in comparison to the harsh criticisms from the rest of the world? For Beijing, the North Korea regime has always been the little brother occasionally behaving astray. They know that Kim's country lacks the resources, money and even will to launch any serious foreign invasion judging from the perilous state his country is in. But Kim's unpredicatble madness and sudden aggression are always needed for the world to come knocking on Beijing's door again waving for help. Therefore the implicit encouragement. It will be impossible for China to take any serious measure to discipline North Korea or to go America's way for the alternative regime change. In keeping Kim safely but agitated, Beijing would keep the status of North Korea's one and only companion in the world.

Another point has to be addressed is China's undividing attention towards Taiwan as they have claimed time and again that they will take Taiwan by force once the status quo in the Taiwan Strait is threatened. The Chinese military has deployed one third of its force along the costal provinces directly facing Taiwan, and some 820 ballistic missiles of M-9 and M-11 pointing straight at the island. Under this situation, Taiwan can be attacked in as little time as seven minutes without any prior warning. China has already threatened Taiwan once back in 1995 by launching a comprehensive missile test into the pacific ocean just 50 miles from the island, attempting to influence Taiwan's first presidential election.

A thing or two for us to understand the potential ambiguity between promoting international security and Chinese aggression.

Posted at July 11, 2006 11:05 PM
? David Ignatius, PostGlobal | Permalink

> Right after we posted this question, something interesting
> happened: China sent a diplomatic mission to Pyongyang, to try
> to wrest some sort of concessions from the North Koreans,
> and Japan agreed to hold off a vote on its UN
> Security Council resolution condemning North Korea
> (which the Chinese had threatened to veto).
> These developments underscored the thrust of our question, which
> is that the Chinese have the cards, if they want to play them.

I am not sure if the Chinese "have the cards". Sending a diplomatic mission to KPNK doesn't equate to any diplomatic success.

> The benefits for China in playing a decisive role on the North
> Korea issue seem stunningly obvious—to everyone but the Chinese.
> This is their moment to show they can deliver, and act as
> America's security partner in East Asia. That would provide many
> benefits, not least that it would check any resurgence of Japanese
> military ambitions in the region, as Adams rightly notes in his
> post above. Message to China: Just do it! But I bet they won't.

Call me dumb. It isn't obvious to me that China can be America's security partner in East Asia. Two things:
1. America's already got a security partner in Asia — Japan.
2. Major item: China can't be America's security partner. The two
countries' values do not align. Such "partnerships",even if
possible, will be short-lived. But most
importantly, China's a "strategic competitor", remember?

Enlighten me.

I think the question assumes that China is not interested in promoting international security. If we leave that open and for a moment accept the premise that China is interested in international security, for there are many good reasons for that such as China's booming economy. Then the puzzle becomes why does China oppose harsh measures against North Korea?
I think that Chinese leadership and its military-industrial complex has a close relationship with North Korean. Chinese leaders perhaps also fear the fall out of economic sanctions such as a humanitarian crisis at their door. The only hope is to have bilateral talks between North Korea and the United States, North Korea and Japan, and North Korea and South Korea with China as an interlocutor. China being militarily the most powerful country in the region and hub of the global economy in the region it has to take that responsibility.

The reason China will NOT support a power driven push for unanimity with the U.S. on North Korea OR Iran are manifold.
After hundreds of years of loss of international power and influence, the Chinese KNOW this century will be theirs.
They have billions of dollars in "loans" to the U.S. They can demand payment on all of those dollars anytime they wish. I suspect, they will consider the billions of dollars they potentially control as a fair price for reaching the point where they can manufacture just about anything they wish ... independent, certainly, of any great U.S. assistance.
Chinese leaders know something about use of force, and use of enticements with the middlesome nations of the world. Their history includes all types of leaders: malevolent; benevolent. Xenophobic, cosmopolitan. Miltarists, regional collaborators. They have risen in stature and favorability in unofficial "polls" in the world. The Chinese also don't hammer potential client states with excessive demands that all assume the look of "belonging" to their sphere of influence, as the Bush Administration demands. China is not forcing nations to "be with them or against them."
So, poised to emerge as THE Superpower of the 21st Century, China bides it's time.
They have made numerous deals for energy (oil and gas). They have made deals on weapons. They have made deals on raw resources that they critically need (and they need many). They understand, also, how to read American popularity polls ... and assess the political power of George Bush, Dick Cheney, and the Congress.
Chinese leaders aren't going to do ANYTHING of substance re: Iran or North Korea until AFTER the Fall elections in the U.S. They KNOW that if the Democrats gain in the House or Senate, or both, that George Bush's wheels will start spinning faster and faster, as Congress finally asserts itself. Political investigations into Bushista policies and programs could gain ground if the House is suddenly tilted towards a Democrat majority. The Chinese have seen many "lame duck" American Presidents come and go since the end of WW II, and certainly, since the end of WW I.
China will NOT, above all else, do anything to sever it's fundamental ties with either Iran OR Iraq. They also receive oil from Indonesia, a Muslim nation clearly headed for greater stature in the Islamic world. China could also play both ends against the middle so far as deals are concerned with Pakistan and India.
China's greatest weakness is NOT being an international sea power, which would allow it to project national power abroad, and make sea lanes safe for travel of critical resources. Why would they want to jeporadize that? And, like much of the world, China's leaders probably despise George Bush. There is, quite justifiably, a lot of that going around. I'm certain that Chinese leaders, civilian and military, have gotten an earful of accurate and honest appraisals of George Bush, Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, and, John Bolton. China is the home of many martial arts, some of which allow an opponent's aggression to be exploited, with deft moves to one side or another.
China and Russia neither want an unstable North Korea. They will NOT allow Iran to be destroyed by nuclear strikes by the Americans. They understand more and more than the U.S. and Israel are really reflections of one another (at least as long as Bush is around), in terms of their bullying images, arrogance, and lack of insight into how many people on the planet they've turned off.
China will not allow Iran to be bombed, and they believe that if they do not force North Korea to the table, Japan will feel more threatened. While the Chinese may not wish for an arms race between themselves and Japan, they also know that Japan is a very reluctant apologizer for the rape of the Far East during WW II. Millions of people experienced the brutality of Japan dureing WW II. And, even more millions of children of those people have heard stories about Japanese brutality.
IF Japan rearms, in response to the North Korean missile launches, there will be a backlash against Japan, not China. If the predilection towards Xenophobia from Japan emerges as they become more nervous, there will be hostile reactions from other Asian nations.
It's also in China's interests to KEEP American troops in South Korea, while, at the same time, quietly edging the South Koreans to a position of "saying their mind" to the Bush Administration. Of all nations on the planet, South Korea definitely does NOT want a war with North Korea.
The vacuum opened if American troops are withdrawn from South Korea could open up rearmament by that nation and Japan. Better to work in ways to keep 35,000 American troops IN South Korea and the same number in Japan ... to further weaken the American conventional military's posture. America's power has always come from the conventional forces, not the nuclear forces. Once it is established that no one wants to be the first to use nukes, conventional military power is the REAL measure of power on the planet.
Until Iraq, the U.S. maintained impressive conventional military power.
China knows, in the end, that the U.S. does NOT have the conventional military power to attack Iran AND North Korea, AND fight in Afghanistan AND Iraq AND deal with hurricane seasons, fire seasons, floods and other natural disasters AT HOME. Why give the best boxer in the ring any assistance when it's obvious that fighting other opponents has seriously weakened the boxer. Wait until that boxer has weakened, and then step into the ring.
The average American doesn't yet grasp what it will FEEL like to be a regional rather than superpower.
The process Great Britain went through as their international power diminished, was greatly facilitated by a sister capitalist superpower's assistance ... US. Because of capitalism, the U.K. has emerged as a strong regional power. That's all, though. It is complimented and strengthened in military cooperation with the U.S. Once the U.S. falls from Superpower influence, there'll be few around who will rush to our aid. As when any bully teeters and falls to his knees, there will be plenty who will gloat, and caution: wait. The S.O.B. NEEDS to be on his knees for awhile.
China's leaders know all of these things.
They will dance, bob and weave, but they will NOT support military intervention against either Iran or North Korea.
They've got more cards in their hand than most Americans know.
Bush will self-destruct if Congress shifts to the Democrats.
Democrats will also know how to negotiate better with China, Russia, North Korea and Iran in the wake of the most hated President in history.
Containment worked in the Cold War; the Clinton approach to North Korea had at least stabilized the "threat" from North Korea. These strategies worked to defeat communism. They will work again, as Democrats take command ... but then, that's not a given just yet. They're demoralized and leaderless.
China will continue to play every option they can to weaken Bush.
\ THAT's what's in their interests.

You can hear the laughter in Pyongyang. After firing off missiles, Kim Jong Il confounds the world yet again and plays it on puppet strings. Privately, China is livid; preferring to slink away envoys to admonish Kim in Pyongyang, but ostensibly supporting its "friend" China should be rightly upset, as this will surely manifest its worst nightmare as the genesis of:

1. greater US-Japan security cooperation,

2. a Japanese extreme constitutional makeover,

3. and the advent of Japan's offensive military capabilities to engage these threats.

All the while, Japan will point the finger of blame North. And China can ill-afford such an arms race at this critical period of its economic growth. Deng must be turning in his grave.

But the reality is that China - like every other member of the Party of Six - holds little to no sway over the North. The US mistakenly believes China holds the key, but the North and China know otherwise; though, under no circumstances will China admit it. It is likely that North Korea is playing its brinkmanship with China as well.

For North Korea's part why not? It has nothing to lose and time is on its side. The people will continue to eat tree back since they know nothing better. A look around finds that India, Pakistan, and Libya got respect. Even Iran got some love without regime change. What is wrong with a little bottle-rocket to commemorate the 4th of July and President Bush' birthday? North Korean behavior has always been that of an unloved juvenile seeking attention - good or bad it's all about the attention.

Meanwhile, Japan takes the lead in pressing for a punitive response. US support is full and clear as expected. China appeals for calm and admonishes Japan for "over-reacting". Besides, what harm can come from firing off an ICBM that could potentially breakup over a major Japanese metropolis? Certainly not worth over-reacting.

South Korea demurs. How can it be seen as supporting Japan of all nations at the expense of its brothers to the North? So, it is best to remain ineffectual and irrelevant, preferring more talks and acting above the fray. After all, the North's bulls-eye is on Tokyo, not Seoul. Moreover, the South has merely become the patsy stooge that North Korea has propagandized to the people of the Peninsula - the only Korea "occupied by a foreign military".

So what to do? Without its missiles and bombs, North Korea would be another third-rate, squalid ozone Gap nation; adrift from the Functioning Core planet of Tom Barnett's Map. It would deserve little to no attention except when the US should decide to aggressively shrink it into the Core (http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/published/pentagonsnewmap.htm).

Fortunately for North Korea, it is wedged in a great spot - like a parasitic tick - don't squeeze it out lest the Lyme-disease fluid ooze like chaotic refugees across the border. After the usual secret express to Beijing, Kim will emphasize to China, "Yes, I said chaos?as in internal chaos" - China's terrifying nightmare. With friends like that.... And yes, China knows that it is squarely to blame for creating this Frankenstein. So, the US should remind China that they own this mess and are fully responsible for its resolution.

Unfortunately, the US has its own culpability for this debacle. It has a dismal record of dealing with North Korea - sending mixed messages via a parade of Asian "experts" at State and the NSC. Typically, they stay for a few years, before writing books, teaching at Georgetown, or heading off to think-tank stodgy-ville to regale insider stories or dispense arm-chair advice about what to do next.

All the while, Kim sits back and waits for the big pay-day. "Stop sending me pageboys. I need another Madeline Albright on my rostrum to show the people that I am the man!" And what will come in return? Kim is probably betting for the same economic package that the EU offered Iran, and maybe like the one the US offered India, Pakistan and Libya. Or even better, maybe a book deal or a movie complete with Swedish starlets?

And why not, there are no double standards in the principled world of foreign policy. Didn't India just fire off a few missiles? Great timing. With friend like that....And yes, indeed, after the silence, all you can hear is laughter in Pyongyang.

Nixon (as much as he disgraced the office) looked at China and included them in the international party. You want to reduce North Korea's threat you make the policy one of inclusion but by stages.

Keeping people out and away further drives a wedge and allows little or no room for discussions.

The hardliners in the Bush Adminstration need to realize that history can be repeated and this via inclusion. The Cold War ended and the Bush adminstration si doing all it can to expand the issue into a path that the world does not need and does not welcome.

Place the interests of the USA before personal ego driven policy.

Does it help to think that China is protecting its national security?

China provides Pakistan with nuclear weapons. China provides North Korea with missile design. China helps the exchange - weapons for missiles. It tries to pin down Japan with one and India with another.

As we saw from yesterday's Pak's terror attacks, India, my country, is a wimp.

I hope China continues with its N.Korea policy enabling Japan's (I hope its are no wimp) rise so that we have at least on country in the neighbourhood who can stand up to China.

North Korea poses no threat to China. North Korea is in fact a heaven made tool for China. It enhances China's international role-playing and importance. The status quo of a nutsy regime which threatens 'world order' and could be influenced by China renders great political and diplomatic prestige to a country which also was a global pariah (in accordance with the position of the US) for 30 years. Now China is on the fast track to become a VIP -very important player- in power politics. Unlike the US which now is self divested of all moral persuasion, and has to rely on 2000 pound bombs for global suasion, China is ascending: patient, non-moralizing,non-critical,helpful, rich (in the true sense of rich-no debts), and so understanding of a differing national ethos. a true friend to those in need. To be sure, this stance is not one taken from a position of military weakness either. They don't shove that power in anyone's face or subtly imply the intimidation that lurks behind their outstretched hand so they are presumed to be benign in their participation. Much better to deal with China than with the US.
They are now spreading thei geopolitic into Africa. We can play the guessing game-where next? South America is ripe. In other words, China is politically brilliant. By definition, they certainly won't follow the US into the babbling incoherence that describes our international gropings.

China fears an Invasion of China if North Korea collpased of millions of North Koreas pouring across their Borders like the USA is Experiencing with Mexico! The have no interst in Modifying or Changing Korea behavior!

One of the tendencies in global politics is to attribute universal motives and strategies to countries and governments, which in reality are very diverse. China should not be judged by the same standards as western nations, its motives and its methods are different coming as they do from a very different culture and history.

American avowed strategy is about spreading its own culture and values globally and it does so by exercising its very considerable economic and military dominance. Similarly, British strategy has more to do with a yearning to maintain its former global influence through use of diplomacy and local contacts built up over the past two centuries. Both nations respond to the globalisation of trade, travel, cultures and communications by using their strengths to their own political and economic advantage. Events in the world are seen in terms of how they impact these national strategies and objectives. Emergence of new power centers and alliances in the world are often misinterpreted or opinions are conditioned by experiences in history which are no longer relevant.

China's experience in the world is very different from that gained first hand by those in Washington or London. Its history, its geographical position and its size have resulted in physical isolation and a natural independence. The main influence in the governance of China has been the need to maintain order and cohesion within its own borders. These borders have remained surprisingly constant over the centuries despite excursions by predators (European nations in the 19th century and Japan periodically) and China has done comparatively little to seek territorial expansion simply for its own sake.

Communism and the Maoist era had more to do with ensuring the cohesion of the state than it did with some radical shift in cultural or political belief. It was a tool and when shown to be ineffective it was discarded (or at least heavily modified). The emergence of capitalism in China is a similar progression - a means of maintaining the welfare and cohesion of the state. Developments in communications, expanded access to what is happening elsewhere in the world and a rapidly expanding domestic population have all demanded a new political approach by the Chinese government if the Motherland is to be protected and to prosper. But it is a limited "conversion" to "western" methods since there is not wholesale acceptance of the same values that have driven America or Europe. Capitalist values are accepted as a means to an end rather than as an end in themselves.

So China's comparatively recent (and very successful) embracement of global trade is motivated by a desire to maintain China itself, to create wealth which leads to stability, and to ensure access to raw materials and markets that sustain a 2 billion domestic population. There is little evidence that they seek to dominate or expand their borders, and even less indication that they seek to export their political beliefs or culture. For such a large nation they are a relatively benign force and even the exceptions to this condition are defensive rather than aggressive (Taiwan, Vietnam, Tibet).

And so China's current approach to diplomacy and global political events is first and foremost to ensure the stability and welfare of China itself. It seeks economic growth but more to ensure the welfare of its people and institutions rather than as a platform for political or economic dominance elsewhere. It chooses its friends in support of this narrow self-interest and in the international forum it tries to frustrate any alliances which it judges may be against its long term interests. It will tolerate (even encourage) capitalism at home and embrace global trade, not as a sell-out to western values or strategies but simple as the best way in the 21st Century of ensuring the continuance and prosperity of a nation that has existed for a millennium. We should expect that China will be robust on the world stage, not to seek dominance or conversion of the world to its values, but rather to defend itself and to retain its independence. History shows us that it is a proud nation but not by nature a belligerent one.

China's approach to regional issues (including N Korea), its attitude to global alliances and institutions (including the UN), its approach to world commerce and markets (including its trading partnerships with African nations), its attitude to other super-powers (America and Russia included), and its harsh approach to personal freedoms inside China (on issues such as dissident groups and Internet access) all need to be interpreted in this historical and cultural context. There will be tactical deviations from time to time, but the long-term strategy is clear and America and her allies need to interpret actions and events accordingly.

What does being forceful mean? Is the American solution of being forceful by making war a solution or merely enhancing the problem? The cost of Iraq and Afghanistan are so great that they weaken the United States and its ability to properly manage its domestic affairs and international affairs in a responsible fashion, hence they increase their debt and in doing this they consequently must compensate in some way to finance their war effort. The effect of this compensation means the world must pay and it does this in the form of higher oil prices that are directly related to the war in the Middle East, but also in the form of a weakened dollar which has depreciated 40% in value since the arrival of President Bush in the White House. Thus all nations that had holdings in dollars find the purchasing power of these holdings reduced by 40% while they find themselves paying 300% more for oil. This is not the kind of policy that wins hearts and minds. The forcefulness punishes everyoneís pocketbooks and it also weakens everyoneís sense of faith and trust in the American governmentís ability to judge properly the meaning of being forceful. As we see the price of being forceful, at least in this sense, is indeed great and I believe there are around 6.3 billion people who wish that president Bush had been intelligent in his technique of being forceful and not brash. Still I think that 6.3 billion people agree with the President that they want a means to successfully combat terrorism and I think that this means using the strength of interdependence. When the president made his choice to attack Iraq he made a decision that extended far beyond the boundaries of the United States. He in effect chose for the well being of the world as a whole, only that his choice didnít enhance the well being of the world but rather detracted from it. So being forceful ought to mean that the decisions made achieve the goal of impeding a particular action taken by a nation without sucking the entire worldís well being into the equation. The world is interdependent and that interdependence means choices must take into consideration this interdependence. Hurting oneís self and oneís partners to punish the actions of a particular nation might not only fail in achieving the intended goal but it might make everyone worse off while it fails at achieving its goal at the same time. Thus Iraq is not only at present a regional failure but it is a global failure in terms of defeating global terrorism. So how is China supposed to whip North Korea into line? Are they supposed to threaten them with military attack or perhaps by means of economic sanctions? China has 600 million people who are not yet receiving the joy of their nationís new found prosperity. That fact sets a constraint on what China can or cannot do in terms of its own domestic stability. The Chinese government cannot waste money on military ventures that wonít in some way win them brownie pointsóa war must win economic return and such wars are indeed seldom. What I mean is that they cannot afford an Iraq like warówhich offers no return while it sucks the budget dry, while it hurtís everyone elseís budget and leaves the gulf in chaos. At this moment in time North Korea is at least stabile and that is positive. What is difficult is to comprehend why North Korea feels the need to arm itself with nukes and develop missiles to deliver these WMD. How one might ask can China, South Korea, the USA, Japan and Russia convince N. Korea that they donít want to attack them and in fact if N. Korea could show a kinder face might in fact become active partners. What would it take to open up N. Korea to the world and what does the world demand of N. Korea to welcome them into the league of nations? In other words China must get N. Korea to climb out of the cage, and to do this they must convince regional members that in fact N. Korea can be trusted to climb out the cage as a potential partner in trade and commerceóand who knows probably a great sports nation will enter the world stage. If China is to achieve its role in the world as a dominant power they will need true partners and why not start with their neighbors (Russia, North-South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, and Taiwan). So perhaps it might be good to find out why N. Korea feels threatened? Knowing why N. Korea feels this need might be a way to persuade them that they perceive things falsely. The other thing is that China, which in fact knows from its history what it means to live under and operate a government like Kim Jong II, might be able to persuade N. Korea to change its course of development. China and South Korea as well as Japan have far more to gain by convincing Kim Jong II to alter its present plan of development, not just in terms of security but also in terms of potential business.

Right after we posted this question, something interesting happened: China sent a diplomatic mission to Pyongyang, to try to wrest some sort of concessions from the North Koreans, and Japan agreed to hold off a vote on its UN Security Council resolution condemning North Korea (which the Chinese had threatened to veto). These developments underscored the thrust of our question, which is that the Chinese have the cards, if they want to play them.

The benefits for China in playing a decisive role on the North Korea issue seem stunningly obvious—to everyone but the Chinese. This is their moment to show they can deliver, and act as America's security partner in East Asia. That would provide many benefits, not least that it would check any resurgence of Japanese military ambitions in the region, as Adams rightly notes in his post above. Message to China: Just do it! But I bet they won't.

China had better curb N. Korea. If not, Japan will have an excuse to rearm and that could be the region's worse nightmare. I expect China will realize this and we will soon see resolution.

China and Russia have to much to lose by pushing to hard. Russia is a trading partner with the likes of Iran, and Syria. China has a lot a stake with Iran.

This is the time to reconsider whether premption, world-watch by the super- power,or a decisive strike to malice of the world (like the nuclear design of Iran or the inter-continental missile testing of North Korea)is ethically justified or not.Who is going to prevent the gobal anarchy?....the U.N.O.???

Perhaps China is orchestrating North Korea's action to take world attention from their own nefarious deeds. At the least North Korea is an easy puppet that China can exploit to weaken the position of the U.S. — as if George W. isn't doing a good enough job himself.

>>What reason does Asia have to hold a huge amount of our debt if they don't any longer believe in our future? Who lends money to a loser?

Good point!
(plus, China might not have expected their rising to be so fast.)

Sure, China wants to constrain NK for the reasons that
1. stability in the region is as crucial to its economic development as anybody else's;
2. for the sake of power balance in the region not to be broken initially by NK, followed by Japan;
3. it has to show its influence in the region worthwhile the US's recognition of its stance and interest in Taiwan issue;
4. it has to show its allies and to-be allies it has the influence.

Self-interest is the top priority of every country. After seeing the failure of DaBuDong-II, The US felt eased immediately. While The Japanese remained loud because of other short- and middle-range missles and it upgraded to uproaring about going pre-emptive strikes. It moved very quickly to announce that it will enter missle defense system a year earlier than previously declared. The move is also in US interest. (doesn't any one wonder why the US suddenly brought up the banking sanctions against NK while the 6-party talk was going somewhat hopefully? The sanctions made NK leave the talk.)

So, so far, Japan is the first country to benefit from the missle-test crisis, But who will be final winner? Let's wait and see.

China should stop North Korea when the United
States stops Israel from terrorizing the Palestinians.

Ted makes an interesting argument that China isn't more forceful in maintaining "international security" (which itself is a comedic term) because it benefits from global anarchy. However, Mr. DiBiasse's analysis falls short when it comes to China's behavior in reality. China - as is any major power - is unquestionably interested in global stability. Its markets, and it's "interests" can only be served by a relatively stable global environment.

So the explanation must be something else. And it is. The question can be looked at in reverse. Why would China be more forceful in promoting international security? Despite the insightful arguments that this question is but a straw man and that security is heavily dependant upon perception - why would China do something when it doesn't have to do anything? If your neighbor's house is on fire you might be concerned that the fire will spread to your property. Would you unwind the garden hose or call the fire department? Even if China thought Korea a threat - which it likely doesn't - why would they throw a bucket of water on the fire when they know the fire department will - eventually - show up? And why shouldn't China expect the US Fire Department to respond - after all, it is paying for it.

China is playing a signifigant in promoting interenational security. As American power evaporates in Asia, both Japan and China are maneuvering for stability in the developing. Of course, both of them are seeking national advantage in the restabilization. The Japanese Army is being reborn, because the Japanese trust in our word has collapsed. Maybe the TaePoDong can't reach our shores, but one third of our military forces now live with let Kim put a gun to their head. How powerful is the fleet in Okinawa now? And, what did this irritating occupier do to protect Japan? Japan and China are doing plenty to "promote international security".
I think your question may be misdirected. I don't think Americans yet appreciate the loss of face and stature the United States and George Bush have suffered in Asia. Westerners don't seem to realize what it means to insult a man and leader on the day he celebrates his 60th birthday, a most meaningful and important ritual of elderhood and wisdom. As he celebrates with his troops, also on our national holiday as our symbol of technological advantage is being launched, Kim walked over and slapped Bush across the face. Then he said, "Look at the Paper Tiger."

Bush, who had threatened to kick Lil' Kim's butt, called a lawyer instead. The fact that Bush supposedly maintained "The Bush Doctrine" and issued threats to North Korea that he was going to enforce it, has left us looking ridiculous and powerless.

In Korea, as a lucky draftee who wasn't sent to Viet Nam, I fell in love with the board game the West knows as Go. Because of that, I have spent thousands of evenings socializing with Asian men, usually in my home or theirs. My friends are in their 50's and 60's and so have some of the old time Asian manners. Those that I am still in contact with, most were visiting academics, are nearly cringing with what should be my humiliation about having my nation and president humiliated. Fortunaltely, I appreciate, but don't share my older Asian friends' apparent social humbleness. But, I've watched Asia long enough to see an enormous power grab going on. Saty what, the Japanese are considering altering their constitution to allow an army to act internationally? Japan is talking about attacking North Korea, and you are wondering if the Chinese are busy enough?

The bigger question for America? What reason does Asia have to hold a huge amount of our debt if they don't any longer believe in our future? Who lends money to a loser? My guess now is that they will be restrained for awhile, because of the possibility that the next American administration may be competent.

I think we'd like to avoid militarizing Japan if any other option exists. This week they're our friends, but I don't think anybody ought to forget that the last time they had a powerful military they ate their entire hemisphere. And while they were truly heinous to the Chinese (Nanking, anyone?) they weren't any better behaved toward western civilians caught in occupied areas, let alone allied POWs (Bata'an?). So before anyone starts advocating rearming Japan at US expense, let's remember what it took to sit them back down last time. And as I recall, isn't avoiding giant mushroom clouds the whole point of this exercise?
Besides, I think Kim Jong Il is far more likely to blow *himself* up than anyone else— if China's smart, they'll remember that they're a lot closer geographically to that diminunitive crackpot than anybody else and make an effort to leash the little wackjob.
On the other hand, this would certainly be the best time for ultimatums, because in a couple of years KJI will be in a position to shoot back. If I were calling the shots on this one we'd make it clear to North Korea that we'll see them in hell before we let them get their twitchy little fingers on nukes and ICBMs. Give 'em a choice— they can recieve millions of US dollars in humanitarian and technical aid, or they can recieve millions of US dollars in cobalt-coated nuclear warheads. It's just typical of this administration that they played tough-guy with a relatively harmless idiot (Hussein) and soft-touch with a dangerous madman (KJI).

Lets not get too carried away with the 'China is the second coming of Rome' speak. America may have its problems, but China is far from perfect. Its government is fraught with corruption, its farmers riot regularly, and the world still holds a fairly deep distrust of its banks.

Another thing that some people here don't seem to understand is the global market. We are no longer subject to imperialistic economies whereby the major powers can dictate its foreign and economic policy with impunity. We are reliant on China, and China is reliant on us. If the American economy collapses, as some here would suggest is China's ultimate goal, then the entire world economy collapses, including China. If our dollar becomes worthless, who is going to buy Chinese manufactured goods?

Politicians throw around 'national deficit' numbers to get votes, but fail to mention the deficit has increased along side every major economic growth period we have seen in the US. The only thing the national debt says is that everyone wants dollars right now. The American consumer gets inexpensive goods in exchange for bits of paper. Sounds good to me.

No, China is not going to bleed us to death. If anything, we are. Remember JFKs challenge, "Ask not what can my country do for me, but what can I do for my country." It makes me sick everytime I hear someone whine about the government not supplying enough jobs or not paying enough welfare.

One can only hope the Bush administration is making it crystal clear to Beijing — and meaning it — that their continued instigation of Kim Jong Il's tantrum eventually shall lead to one serious consequence - our enthusiastic support for Japan's renewed militarization, including of the nuclear kind. After all, Japan cannot be expected to sit idly by while a tin-pot dictator jerks their chain. Let the Chinese government deal with that.

Perhaps it is time to ask why the United States does not solve the
North Korean problem herself, rather than trying to hide behind the
Chinese skirts or anyone else. Afterall, North Korea has repeatedly asked
to meet with the United States and has put on the table what she
wishes to discuss. The refusal of Mr. Bush to meet directly with the
North Koreans raises far more questions about Mr. Bush's emotional
involvement with the issue than the
North Koreans, in that such an approach is so out of character for a
great nation who claims to be a champion of peace and democracy. No
previous president was ever reluctant to meet with the North Koreans.

China was a pariah state in the world, just like today's North Korea until Richard Nixon in his infinite wisdom decided to embrace China's Communist dragon in order to counter Russia's soviet bear. Most of the West European and East Asian countries also stayed away from China following US lead until then and followed US in embracing China after that Nixon visit. In order to save his place in history after watergate debacle, Nixon proded Reagan to open vast American consumer market to goods from Communist China, a favor that US would not extend to Communist Russia. Bush Senior, an ex-ambassador to Beijing was also there to support Nixon. Clinton, who campaigned against butchers of Beijing in 1992 elections, also became enthusiastic supporter of China trade after getting lessons in foreign policy from Nixon in early 1993.

Opening up of American consumer market allowed China to amass enormous dollar currency reserves that China successfully used to purchase all the military hardware she wanted. Thus US has nobody to blame but herself for promoting powerful Communist China on world stage. After having vanquished Communism from Russia, Reagan has actually strengthened Communistsí hold on power in China and promoted another Communist super power to challenge US, iornic as this is. Nixon/Reagan/Bush/Clinton have done more for Chinaís progress under Communist dictatorship and thereby strengthened Communism in China than Mao or Chou could have ever done.

China's view of the world has always been China centric. Its a huge country, its growing in might, its got enough expendable people to simply throw into the flames of war and drag one out for ever, its got neighbours fraught with regional and religious imbalances and internal issues...China has it made.
On the other hand, the US - reviled and hated all over the world and struggling with sluggish economic growth - isnt the threat it used to be.

If little rogue, anti-establishment states can get away with challenging the US these days with inflammatory policy and words, why not China? Its the establishment and an equal to the US in every way.

China follows a simple rationale of power politics.

Being a revisionist power, China would want to supplant USA in the Pacific and beyond, but before that can be possible, it is necessary, that US loses its mantle.

For China to rise:
1. Diverting American Attention: USA must not build up a national security policy on the single issue of containment of China. So the American attention needs to kept diverted. Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Islamic Fascists, WMD Proliferation are all handy tools to keep America's attention diverted from China's rise.

2. American Dependency of China: USA must appeal for Chinese help as often as possible. Chinese status as UN Security Council veto-holding permanent member comes in very useful. Moreover Chinese cooperation in containing North Korean transgressions through the Six-Party Talks is often looked for by US. As long as USA is dependent on China, US would not confront China.

3. Increase in Relative Soft Power: By becoming the sole guardian of the international order, America is increasingly coming under world-wide criticism and losing out the world's sympathy and support. China on the other hand has increased its soft image and thereby soft power. China has entered into strong political and economic relationships with countries in South East Asia, Central Asia, Africa and Latin America. By playing protector of controversial rights and bad behaviour by regimes like in Tehran, Islamabad, and Caracas, China is gathering all the sundry pissed off at America.

4. Building an Anti-American Alliance: Together with Russia, China is quitely building up a formidable alliance consisting of authoritarian Central Asian states, rabidly anti-American Pakistan, and Iran, under the banner of SCO, all the time quitely giving USA false assurances of not being anti-American.

5. Economic Monopoly: By undercutting the rest of the world by dumping under-valued Chinese goods in US market, China has built up a formidable reserve of American dollars. With so much debt to China, USA has become docile to Chinese interests.

6. Military Buildup: China has gone on a buying spree of latest weaponry and technology from Russians and dual-use technology from Europeans and Americans. They are spending far more on military than officially acknowledged.

So everybody,
North Korea is just a pawn on China's chessboard. Americans are playing the game wrong by depending on Chinese support on the issue.

There are only two ways to solve North Korea.
1. Make US-Chinese trade contingent on Chinese support on North Korean issue.
2. Get Japan to bomb North Korea, and to hell with South Korean sensibilities. They have only themselves to blame for not taking the US side. Besides after the collapse of the North, South Koreans in the aftermath may even consider it a positive turn of events.

Chinese deplomacy is different from US and its allies. China's intrests and alliances are different. China's security concerns are different from US allies south Korea and Japan. so far china never openly threatens to any country openly, and instead of putting trade embargos look for the opening of the trade. no wonder that the chinese trade balance is in their favor and their economy is sky rocketting. and incidentlly their biggest out let Shanghai is geographically situated in same waters

i have opportunity to visit north korea, south korea china and japan.

north korea still adopting the old chinese socialist system. chinese very well know that one or two missiles are not any serious threat for their security.

china adopting plane face diplomacy playing its cards very wisely. presently nobody can predict what will be its next move. and at this moment simply they are not considering the use the forceful pursuation will be productive for chinese long time intrests in the future economic hub of the world.

There is no need for force. There is no profit for China to be gained. North Korea has a purpose. It scares Japan. North Korea is a more credible threat to Japan than China because of its unpredictibility combined with prior weird acts. If Japan reacts, China will hammer it.

For China, the status quo is the most desirable state. It is Kim that is upsetting that state by being a belligerent against Japan, the US and other states that he has successfully in the past blackmailed into giving him what he wants. During the 1990's, he duped (Madeleine Korbel Albright's phrase, not mine) the Clinton State Department by using the light water nuclear technology we gave (as opposed to sold to) to this depraved dictator to appease him, to develop plutonium in quantities sufficient to make some bombs. North Korea is still the largest recipient of US foreign aid in Asia which means we are subsidizing his bad behavior.

Neville Chamberlain proved what folly any kind of appeasement is, and that it will lead to more belligerence. Continuing with what we have been doing is proving that we have not learned from such folly with regard to Kim. All we need to do is cut off his aid, and if he rattles sabers enough he will provoke the wrath of the Japanese who will find that loophole in their constitution that allows for military action that is defensive in nature. This is certainly not in China's best interest, so they won't let the dictator do as he pleases for long lest he loses their foreign aid as well.

Yes, China will put some discreet pressure on North Korea to "negotiate" its position, i.e. to strike a sweet deal with Western powers. Why? Because the US will agree to put discreet pressure on Taiwan to reunite with China. That's about the only card the US holds and, although I don't think this crisis warrants playing that card, I have no doubt the Bush administration would give away the house to preserve the status quo in Washington.

China encourages North Korea's actions because it takes heat away from them and their military build-up and focuses it on Kim Jong-il. If there was no threat and periodic saber rattling coming from North Korea, then the US Congress and media would have more idle time on their hands to scrutinize China.

Revolution is still an important idea among many in China. Both Chinaís political and military leaders see chaos outside of Asia as a weapon, while at the same time they are promoting stability and unity within Asia. As the U.S. seeks to overthrow more unfriendly governments, China will focus on building its ties in Asia and Africa. At the same time focusing on consolidating its rapid military and industrial development. Each new move by the U.S. to insure the installation of friendly governments through out the world will be seen by many as U.S. imperial expansionism. North Korea with the help of China will in the near future develop long range inter-continental missiles that may not be very accurate but, will force the U.S. to see North Korea as a country that they cannot just brush off as a country run by a bunch of crazies.

You've got to be kidding, right?

China is sitting back and watching us self-destruct, helping us along the way by enabling our crushing national debt and sending their students to fill our otherwise empty science and technology graduate programs. If we stay on our current path, soon they will both own us and eclipse us technologically.

Up until the point that they might actually fear a US attack on North Korea (in which case they would likely fight for North Korea and then later crush them to put their own guy in charge), they will be content to sit back and watch our cowboy diplomacy and wanton disregard for our resources dig us deeper and deeper in a hole.

The most civilised nations of the times know the facts and defects of the policies they run. I wonder when the top prioirty is set to achieve the peace in the world, why we adopt the policy of aggression. The history maker Gandhi rightly said “ there is no way to peace, peace is the way.”

The policy makers of the world are well aware of the facts and results of their policies of counter aggression to supress terrorism and dangers of future. Hate always rise with the hate. Religions, Nations, clans and tribes are making a beautiful mixture of the love. Hopes for the peace arises with the education and prosperity. And peace can always be gained with the respect of other.

The situation in the warotorne world is alarming us to give up the policy of aggression. The state of affairs in the regions of education, health, poverty and hunger seeks special attention of the world policy makers. No dout there is mach being done in this regard by the world but on the other hand the depletion caused by the aggression is widening the gap of respect and hate. This gap has to be minimised with the change of policies.

The times has gone when the storonger snatched everything from the opponent. It is the time to eliminate the gap of hate and respect. Voilation erupts from the bed of supression.

There are always two ways to deal with any problem i.e. one with aggression and the other with respect of the other. The nations know the problem of oil and power. That is why all these nuclear weapons of mass destruction are being achieved. The stronger does not allow the weaker to get the technology to kill the mankind. The race to eliminate the world peace is in its peak. The civilised nations are spending much of the resources on warheads and on how to eliminate the human beings from the earth. The resources which we are putting in making the policies, how to supress the other and snatch things. And the resources being put on the ways how to overcome or subjugate the others. How come if these resources should we spend on the policy makers to evaluate the policies with which we get the world peace with respect of others.

With love and respect we can get everything from the other and it will be everlasting forever. But with agression if the stronger snatch something from the weaker today, the weaker can become stronger tomorrow. It is now upto us that we need it for ever or for time being. The world remember those with pride who makes the world praceful and it does not matter whoever he was or his religion, creed. cast or colour. It is upto us what we want to be, how we want to be remembered, as a repressor or a hero.
In my veiw the intelligentia of every religion must consider the following questions? The intelligentia must consist of the people who knows the real problems and not the which who always remain in search of chances to exploit the nation with the very touchy feelings of the people.
1. why people hate people?
2. why clans/tribes/creeds hate eachother?
3. why nation hate the other nation?
4. why religion hate the other?
If we will be able to find answer and solution to these questions we can make the world peaceful.

China does not have beef with North Korea and has no reason of getting tough on North Korea. Unlike what Sresh Sheth claimed, China is not going to worry about a "united Korea" - the population, GDP, and military of a united Korea is still much smaller than those of China. I also found a lot guys of Indian origin verbal attack on China (ususaly also including Pakistan at the same time) hilarious. They badmounth about all over the Internet discussion forums; many Chinese I talked to felt bewildered about Indians's obsession with China. The Chinese NEVER compare their country to India; they instead measure their nation up to the United States. China and India, despite being labeled as "developing nations," are NOT in the same league.

Who created North Korea? China by pouring in half a million soldiers against US in 1953.
Who sustains North Korea? China by providing all kinds of economic and military help including missile and nuclear technology.
Who provided necessary chemical to North Korea to extract plutonium from reactor fuel? China. Atleast eight Chinese government companies are involved in providing missile and nuclear technology to North Korea.
Who is Pakistanís all-weather closest military ally? China.
Would Pakistan have dared to supply and North Korea have dared to acquire nuclear technology if China would have objected? Ofcourse not.
What is Chinaís interest in sustaining billigerent North Korea? China wants to assure that North and South Korea never unite. China also wanted to create another threat for Japan.
Would thousands of North Korean refugees flood China if North Korean regime collapses? Not unless China prevents north and south Korea from uniting. In the beginning united Korea will feel economic pain but it will recover just as United Germany recovered. East Germans or Russians did not flood West Germany or Europe upon collapse of East German and Soviet governments. Furthermore China can easily close the border with North Korea and deploy necessary manpower to prevent such North Korean refugee flooding.
Would South Korea and North Korea be able to reunite if China stops propping up North Korean regime? Ofcourse.
Why does China oppose united Korea? China does not want a strong united Korea on its border, especially since Korea had ruled for over 700 years in large areas of Northeast China from 37 b.c. to 668 a.d. China fears that united Korea may someday lay claim to that Chinese territory.
Regardless of any number of negotiations, meetings and treaties, North Korean missile and nuclear weapons dance will continue until US and Japan hold Chinaís feet to fire to stop sustaining North Korea and let North and South Korea unite.

Why America is not willing to hold two party talks with North Korea?

Who created North Korea? China by pouring in half a million soldiers against US in 1953.
Who sustains North Korea? China by providing all kinds of economic and military help including missile and nuclear technology.
Who provided necessary chemical to North Korea to extract plutonium from reactor fuel? China. Atleast eight Chinese government companies are involved in providing missile and nuclear technology to North Korea.
Who is Pakistanís all-weather closest military ally? China.
Would Pakistan have dared to supply and North Korea have dared to acquire nuclear technology if China would have objected? Ofcourse not.
What is Chinaís interest in sustaining billigerent North Korea? China wants to assure that North and South Korea never unite. China also wanted to create another threat for Japan.
Would thousands of North Korean refugees flood China if North Korean regime collapses? Not unless China prevents north and south Korea from uniting. In the beginning united Korea will feel economic pain but it will recover just as United Germany recovered. East Germans or Russians did not flood West Germany or Europe upon collapse of East German and Soviet governments. Furthermore China can easily close the border with North Korea and deploy necessary manpower to prevent such North Korean refugee flooding.
Would South Korea and North Korea be able to reunite if China stops propping up North Korean regime? Ofcourse.
Why does China oppose united Korea? China does not want a strong united Korea on its border, especially since Korea had ruled for over 700 years in large areas of Northeast China from 37 b.c. to 668 a.d. China fears that united Korea may someday lay claim to that Chinese territory.
Regardless of any number of negotiations, meetings and treaties, North Korean missile and nuclear weapons dance will continue until US and Japan hold Chinaís feet to fire to stop sustaining North Korea and let North and South Korea unite.

This may be the "time". Because of economic conditions, the US should tactfully explain to the Chinese that our ability to continue a large and growing trade imbalance, and our ability to share needed technology, is directly related to Chna's ability to get control the little monster just to their south.

One might note that China is very involved in its aquisitions of oil in unstable African nations, and is flexing its muscles in those regions. However, it does not pretend to hide behind some humanitarian curtain to accomplish its aims. The tragedy of the American foregin policy right now is that the Bush administration is covering its economic interests under a veil of 'freedom and democracy against terror.' However, democracy is nothing without capitalism (see Mexico) and our capitalism depends on oil right now. So who are we to call out the Chinese government for being too self serving?

Shouldn't a more fundamental question be whether "forceful promotions" (ie. threats, sanctions, military options) is really the best way to enhance international security? Doesn't excessive use of force breed resentment and hatred? In the past several years, the US has certainly been very aggressive in promoting international security (or at least their government say they are), but the result has created messes in Afganistan and Iraq, thus leading to an increase in instability around the world.

China may simply be learning from US's mistake and try to avoid bullying other country and possible resulting blowback. Of course, the more cynical and probably more correct explanation is that it sees no incentive to "stick out its neck". All countries are inherently selfish and if China thinks that entangling in another countries messes are non-beneficial, then the rational response would be non-interference.

ÔªøLike any other power, China needs to achieve a system of international security that is consistent with (or better yet, promotes) its interests. To the extent our interests conflict with China's, the security system it aims for will differ from what we want. Our government may view the differences as obstructionist, but they are simply an effort by the government of China to promote its interests.

For example, any resolution of the situation in North Korea that results in an increased risk of regime collapse is unacceptable to China because: it does not want to deal with a sudden flood of impoverished, brainwashed North Korean refugees; and it cannot accept a united Korea on its border that is essentially an expanded South Korea, that is, a close ally of the United States that allows the stationing of US troops on its territory. To the extent the US pursues a policy that sees the collapse of the North Korean regime as acceptable or even desirable, China cannot cooperate fully in American efforts to resolve the problem of North Korean militarism. The interests of most participants in the multilateral talks on North Korea are more consonant with China's than ours, so those talks are not likely to achieve an outcome acceptable to the US.

In its dealings with Iran, China needs to take account of the apparent American effort to encircle Iran by installing friendly regimes and stationing troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, while building an alliance with Pakistan. China needs middle east oil at least as much as we do. It cannot afford to let the US dominate the middle east in a way that would allow the US to control China's access to oil.Ôªø It needs a strong relationship with Iran as a counterbalance against American influence elsewhere in the middle east.

If we in the US can't convince Mexico to control its border with the US or if we can't convince Canada to enforce their drug laws then why should we expect China to be able to control a loose cannon like Kim Jung Il?

In short, China isn't more forceful in promoting international security because international anarchy suits them much better. It places a tremendous burden on their chief competitor - the US - because we are so heavily vested in global order.

More specifically, the Chinese recognize a key feature of the international system that is clearly lost on our hapless national leaders - anarchy. Relations between states are volatile, partnerships often short-lived, and governments tend to favor their own welfare over that of the "system". It is impossible to predict with any consistency the behavior of other actors in the system, and so the Chinese evaluate any decision based strictly on their national interests. In this way, they are bogged down neither by the burden of a moral foreign policy or by concern for a world structure of any kind.

The People's Republic deals in energy with Zimbabwe and Iran, trades with North Korea and sells arms in Central Asia. They have no rational concern for the welfare of democracy in Africa, the stability of the Middle East or the metastasism of religious violence throughout Central and West Asia. Leaders in China tend to view the world through a lens tinted by scarcity and competition. They know that oil runs an economy whether it comes from Saudi Arabia or Canada, and that there is less and less oil to get a hold of.

As long as hijackers are not crashing planes into buildings in Beijing, this is unlikely to change. The United States remains a competitor for resources and power, and North Korea remains a source of wasted effort and embarrassment for the US. Where is the incentive for China to act in that situation? And of course this implicitly brings another point to bear, which is that China holds all the cards in the current Sino-American relationship - or should I say all the dollars.

China has no incentive to promote international security by trying to convince North Korea to abandon its nuclear ambitions. History shows that the Chinese have always been interested in one thing and one thing only. Themselves. The events unfolding from the recent missile launches by North Korea has the Chinese government tickled pink. They are again looked to try to persuade the North Koreans to stop any future missile launches as well as a full abandonment of their nuclear program. The Chinese are basking in this moment because they feel that if any action is taken towards the North Koreans, that it was done as a favor to the rest of the world. China has never been big brother and they are trying to play the power game. A game they really never played well. No help from the Chinese. Help from the Chinese will come with expectations and consequences.

First of all, that is a leading question, because China most likely does not view North Korea's actions as an attack on "international security". Whether N. Korea is flexing its muscles to discourage the US from attacking, or as another move in its long sought after goal of reunification with S. Korea, either way, China would not view this as a threat to international security.

China has no history of promoting international security. She has experienced an international order centered on China, an international order that victimized China, an international order China strove to subvert and an international order dominated by an existential threat to China that could be met only through close cooperation with just one other country, the United States. So her current position, as a great power with profound interests in stable international relations, is new.

This does not mean it is uninfluenced by Chinese history — or by China's internal politics. A nation in which the state has been as dominant for as long as it has in China is unlikely to accept easily that key resources — of energy, for example — are safely accessible if they are not under state control. Similarly the Chinese leaders who now appear so indifferent to human rights are products of the Maoist period, which featured levels of brutality and a casualness about human life difficult for most Westerners to imagine. And we are bound to misunderstand China's conduct with respect to the North Korean question if we think of it only in terms of China's interests in the abstract, and ignore the role relations with North Korea must play in the politics of the Chinese Communist Party.

Tools are available to modify the conduct of the Chinese government and direct it toward a more constructive role as a member of the international community. They will not always seem to be effective, among other reasons because China is so big and its internal politics are not well understood in the West, but they are there. However, America's ability to influence China's behavior is bound to be much reduced if we continue to act as if our most important foreign policy priority is the future direction of one mid-sized Arab country. International security depends now as it has throughout the recent past on American leadership; neither China nor most other countries will be its active defenders if the United States has its foreign policy priorities so badly misplaced as it does now.