[hackuser]

Thanks; that's a great addition to the discussion. One important nit:

> The United States effort with both NAFTA and the TPP were to contain Russia and China, respectively, by building a coalition of countries with trade that excludes each specific United States adversary

As I understand it (I'm no expert in the field), U.S. policy in regard to China is that its rise to superpower status is inevitable, and the U.S.'s strategy is to get China to join a rules-based (i.e., law-based) international order - preferably the existing one - rather than create an anarchic great power competition that often results in terrible wars. On a political level, TPP was designed as a step in that direction; it wasn't intended to exclude China but to compel them to join a rules-based trade regime for the Pacific - i.e., either play by the rules or be excluded from trade. The goal was that they would join.

[jwtadvice]

> As I understand it (I'm no expert in the field), U.S. policy in regard to China is that its rise to superpower status is inevitable

Interesting. My understanding is quite the opposite: that the U.S. policy in regard to China is that its rise to superpower status is in question.

China is 25 years or more from being on par with the United States in terms of military projection in its own region (much less power projection in distant lands and seas). China has legitimate issues with all of its territories that have strategic resources: its water is in Tibet, its minerals and oil is in its Uyghur region. The United States today has China surrounded by the "first island chain." China's economy is robust, but has inherent weaknesses that could cause it to fracture as it tries to jump the 'middle income gap'. Indeed out of several dozens of states that have attempted jumping the gap, only a couple have succeeded. Ongoing sovereignty disputes in Hong Kong and Taiwan keep the Chinese mainland divided and focused in on its own territory. Japan today could match Chinese military might, and with the right trajectories could maintain an upper hand in the future. America has tried to block Chinese multilateral/international banking efforts (AIIB, ADB, etc) and it's admission into the Special Economic Basket of currencies at the IMF. Today the United States (well, under the prior administration...) is trying to prevent full membership of China inside the WTO, and it's membership isn't guaranteed. India forms a natural check on Chinese regional power as its population is larger than China and its economy is growing at even faster rates. Russia (which shares a huge and important border with China) and America both eye China and it's ambitions and could individually or together align to snuff Chinese expansion where they to find a good justification. China's international investments are questionable, as much of them are in countries with poor histories of solvency (this is a strategic bet on the part of China). It's One Belt One Road infrastructure project is vulnerable to stability issues in Central Asia (of which there is a long history). The people's party in China also (rightly) fears regime change operations in their country - this remains a real possibility. China has a burgeoning nuclear power (DPRK) on its border, a nation in dispute with a long time American military protectorate.

The United States has a lot of issues it can make with China, from internation trade, currency practices, South China Sea settlement, Taiwan and recognition of independence, Japanese security (look at their reform of National Security legislation), Indian bolstering, Korean Unification, Russia's far east, Central Asian proxies, etc.

The United States is hoping that, with containment pressure on all of China's strategic bets that it won't be able to realize its ambitions to greatness - and will fizzle. This is a practiced playbook: it's how the United States prevented the Soviet Union from realizing super power parity. Curiously, the timeline originally predicted by strategic thinkers for the Soviet Union for parity was also "25 years."

Including China into the "rules-based international order" isn't code for "we want a nation as powerful as our own to also rule the international order." The United States Grand Stategy toward China - indeed toward any and every potential adversary - is to prevent their rise by raising obstacles and costs to its succession.

[hackuser]

Great talking with you, by the way.

Our understandings are different, of course, and it's great to learn another perspective. I agree with much of what you say, I just think it weighs less heavily. But a few concrete points:

1) A minor point: China's massive and questionable investments in poor countries are not grants, but loans (at least, based on what I've read). They may be creating leverage over those countries via debt, similar to what the West had at least until massive debt forgiveness.

2) 25 years is a larger number than what I understand. Depending on how it's measured, China's economy already is ~75% of the U.S.'s size and growing much more quickly (though with many serious risks, as you point out). Also, they don't need complete parity, just the prospect of parity - that will be enough to intimidate neighbors. Finally, China currently can focus all their resources on one region; the U.S.'s are distributed globally - one reason Obama hoped to withdraw from some situations.

3) My understanding was that the Cold War 'containment' strategy was not based on the assumption that the USSR would reach parity, but that their Communist economic system was fatally flawed, would inevitably collapse, and all the West had to do was wait and keep the USSR contained. At the time, some did claim that the USSR would or even did catch up - IIRC (a hazy memory of the histories I read) Kissinger thought so and so did the CIA at some point(s). But mainly we tried to pressure them into failing; that's the popular wisdom for why Reagan engaged in an arms buildup and 'Star Wars' missile defense. Regardless, based on hazy memory of numbers from the 1970s that I saw a year ago, the USSR and Warsaw Pact grew to around 50% of NATOs economic strength.

> The United States Grand Strategy

From what I've read many times from foreign policy insiders, such a thing doesn't exist. The foreign policy institutions are so massive and complex, from Dept of State to Dept of Defense to the National Security Advisor and staff, to all the large subcomponents of each, to Congress, to all the career bureaucrats that outlast any President, that getting them all moving in the same direction is impossible. Also, those people are disappointingly and shockingly focused on the day-to-day; few have time for grand strategy. As one person observed,

If, as F. Scott Fitzgerald said, '[t]he test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function,' then the government is a genius.

I think you would enjoy the whole article:

http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/12/05/how-the-u-s-saw-syrias-w...

[jwtadvice]

Absolutely. Shared respect.

1) Yes agreed here. The investments/loans aren't gifts. They are expected back - with interest - and there is real risk that insolvency and default will stall the investments. This gives China leverage, it develops regions that create the possibility of alternative trade routes and supply chains from the US system, and ultimately China expects their investments not only to produce growth but also pay back into the Bank of China.

2) The 25 year forecast is for regional military parity. Economic parity is on a similar timeline, but I don't know offhand what the most recent projections are. If you look at the strategic literature, many analysts (even journalists) focus on China's ascention in 2040-2050: 25-35 years. (25 years is the smaller number of the projections.) You will have difficulty finding analysts discussing Chinese ascension in 2030 or 2020. I would be interested, of course, in any such literature.

3) "their Communist economic system was fatally flawed, would inevitably collapse, and all the West had to do was wait" - this was Cold War propaganda, which reinforced the message that "The USSR is the wrong trade network to be in" ("Our trade network is the one to be in ;)"). The strategic thinkings from the National Security core of the United States was focused on economic warfare of all kinds that would put pressure on the USSR to collapse. The USSR had attempted to organize strategic resources across nations. When these states were flipped, either by "accidents to their leadership", economic pressure from the US trade network, diplomatic pressure, or internal instability, the USSR needed to reallocate and adjust its system. Twenty five years of unconventional warfare intended to cut the Soviet Union from strategic resources in key areas (Middle East and Central Asia), raise its costs with proxy wars and arms races, containment strategies that limited its options for economic flexibility, and pressure on China to pry the Soviet Union apart from the inside ultimately thwarted the attempt to foment the Eurasian free trade network. The Security State in America was _not_ resting on their laurels, waiting for the USSR to "just collapse". The actions of the United States were meant to put as much pressure toward insolvency and inflexibility in the Union as possible.

> From what I've read many times from foreign policy insiders, such a thing doesn't exist. The foreign policy institutions are so massive and complex, from Dept of State to Dept of Defense to the National Security Advisor and staff, to all the large subcomponents of each, to Congress, to all the career bureaucrats that outlast any President, that getting them all moving in the same direction is impossible.

No, the US has Grand Stategies. You can download, for example, the once-leaked copy of the Bush Administration era "Wolfowitz Doctrine".

Now the interagency process of getting a giant organization like the United States government and private sector to act together in coordinated concert? That's another problem entirely, and something that -rightfully- foreign (and domestic) policy insiders complain about. The difficulty of administering a giant bureaucracy is not the same as there being no Grand Strategy: indeed you can find declassified documents, leaked copies (as mentioned), strategic advice for modernization of Grand Strategy and the like.

Thanks, I'll read this later! FP is... okay. It's just so full of childish references ("pee"-otus), quips and nationalist gilding it's hard to read some times. Though some of their authors are very nice when the editing isn't heavy handed and there's not much competition on the subject (incredibly).

[hackuser]

Are you professionally connected to this field? I'm just someone who reads as much of the best sources I can (about international relations, not just China).

I agree about FP; I don't read it regularly but I'll follow a link there. I'd love to know what you do read. I've actually found a lot of quality sources over the years (depending on how you define it); I can send you a spreadsheet listing most of them if it interests you. I'm always interested in finding more and better sources.

Here's one of my favorite hidden gems:

* The Lowy Interpreter

https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter

The Lowy Institute is Australia's leading foreign policy think tank, as far as I can tell. They provide expert insight and often a much different perspective than U.S. and European peers, both about the issues we know and also about which issues are important. And it's relatively well written.

[jwtadvice]

Yes. I would love to see your spreadsheet.

Some sources that may interest you: The Federation of American Scientists (fas.org), the Strategic Studies Institute (strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil), OpenCourseWare (ocw.mit.edu/courses/political-science/), the Center for Strategic and International Studies (csis.org).

Reddit /r/geopolitics maintains a wiki with a list of open source references that you may find interesting: https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/wiki/index

There's too many things to recommend: foreign news outlets, official press briefings, leaked documents, academic and military history, think tanks and their analysis.

Basic advice: read everything and don't believe any of it.

[hackuser]

Thanks for the tips. Where do I send the spreadsheet?

Also, if you know a forum with valuable, intelligent, somewhat sophisticated discussion of international relations (i.e., non-partisan, non-ideological, non-Internet-style ranting and hyperbole), I would love to know about it.

> read everything and don't believe any of it.

Unfortunately, I lack the time to read even the good stuff. My RSS feed is up to 500+ items per day and I try to be picky about what is included.