US-China Relations. The Iran (Non Issue????) And Please Pardon Stan's Swearing.
The other day I did a post, entitled "On Not "Antagonizing" China. Or How Many Enemies Does The US Need?" expressing my frustration with a United States foreign policy that seems more interested in calling China out for trade and Google issues than in dealing with the far more troubling and potentially existential issue of Islamic extremism/Iranian nukes.
Now Stan Abrams of China Hearsay, in a post entitled, "US Has Hard Time Getting China On Board With Iran Sanctions," in language far stronger than I would use (I have a 12 year old kid and Stan has cats that are apparently inured to his swearing) questions why in the world (that's my soft language, not his) China should go along with U.S. desires on Iran.
You know, it’s really easy to complain about Beijing’s treatment of Google, the value of China’s currency, the grumbling of foreign investors, trade disputes, and so on. And the U.S. might be on the right side of some of those issues.But in the international relations arena, none of that shit matters as much as who has leverage and who wants what. If Iran sanctions are a matter of top priority for the U.S., and the Obama administration truly believes that it has a shot persuading Beijing to get on board, then you don’t fucking sell weapons to Taiwan mere days before a renewed diplomatic initiative on the Iran issue.
This doesn’t seem like rocket science to me, but what the hell do I know? It’s not like I have a graduate degree on the subject or anything.
Perhaps there is an alternate explanation to poor IR execution:
1. Iran sanctions are not really a top priority for the U.S. Perhaps the Obama administration just wants to appear as though they care about sanctions.
2. Iran sanctions were never going to happen anyway. This is all theater because sanctions are untenable.
3. China was never on board. Might as well piss ‘em off, they’re never going to agree anyway.
Nah, I still believe that U.S. policy is uncoordinated.
I completely agree.
Comments (4)
Read through and enter the discussion by using the form at the endSilly - February 12, 2010 4:31 AM
Actually number 3 is plausible. China was never on board, and possibly sent signals that even now it was only interested in playing for time, as usual, and not finally getting on board. Selling arms to Taiwan may have been part of our way of signaling our impatience with their temporizing. Being nice for a year obviously had produced no results.
I don't claim to know the true underlying reasons, but the hypothesis that US policy is uncoordinated seems one of the least likely explanations to me.
theAdmiral - February 12, 2010 12:02 PM
Poor cats... My feeling is, and has been for quite a while, that selling _more_ weapons to Taiwan upsets the status quo. What good comes from that? Taiwan and China have made tremendous strides forward in the 3 links and Taiwan has not complained one bit. Yes, China has thousands of missiles capable of hitting Taiwan. WE, the USA have thousands of missiles capable of hitting Taiwan.
Is there any sane person who thinks for one minute that China is going to physically attack Taiwan? Anyone...anyone.... Bueller?
While I fully support preventing a military invasion of Taiwan, I see absolutely no need to sell weapons to Taiwan under the current status quo.
China will use soft power to win over Taiwan, and that's legal.
saving face - February 12, 2010 11:45 PM
silly - i agree with you that just because US actions are jeopardizing Iran sanctions, doesn't mean the US is unaware of the calculated risks. Also, just because bloggers are ranting about certain US actions, I don't see any tangible evidence that sanctions were 90% likely before and now are 50% likely. It comes across as bloggers playing back seat driver to a complicated political game of chess where it is easy to sound right, because there is no way to measure the probability of something that never occurs.
theAdmiral - regarding anyone who thinks China would physically attack Taiwan? ....Have you never heard the determined unreserved anger in a Chinese national's voice when disucssing Taiwan? Have you never personally seen ugly situations in China occur in order to prevent someone important from losing face? Do you not remember how many Chinese sacrificed their lives during the Korean war that led to today's outcome? Yes, I would say it is not likely a physical attack will occur, but if China felt it was losing face on the world stage by some actions of independence by Taiwan, I do not doubt for one minute that people will die.
Phil Hand - February 14, 2010 7:13 AM
I'm still not quite getting the picture here. Are Stan and Dan seriously making the argument that if the US sells arms to Taiwan and then waits a few months, China will in some way forget, and become much more amenable to US persuasion? This image of China-as-diplomatic-goldfish doesn't gel for me at all.
The timing issue is a western thing; it's a product of our news cycles. If two things happen in the same week, journalists in countries with a free press are inevitably going to create a "narrative" out of it. In China, the press isn't free, and the issue doesn't exist.
The premises are all wrong here. Selling arms to Taiwan isn't done to "piss China off". Selling arms is part of the status quo; it's what the USA does. Just like pointing missiles at Taiwan isn't done to piss the USA off; it's just what China does. Both China and the USA know this, and neither of them lose any sleep over the issue.
To the Admiral: would China actually invade Taiwan... kinda depends on what they learn from the USA. I heard it's unwritten doctrine that the US military gets involved in a real war every 10 years to maintain combat readiness. If China decides this is a good idea then...