Weaving the Net: Conditional Engagement With China
A well-reasoned argument for advancing American interests in Asia and a substantial contribution to the debate on China. The volume calls for ‘conditional engagement’ and identifies ten guiding principles; for example, peaceful resolution of territorial disputes, freedom of navigation, and transparency of military forces. There are several thoughtful essays by American and Asian scholars and a variety of sound advice.
Still, one is left with many doubts about whether a shiny new set of principles will somehow resolve the problems between the United States and China. First, by their very nature, the principles are subject to divergent interpretations. China regards its sovereignty over Taiwan as a matter of principle and refuses to renounce the right to use force against a part of it own territory. Taiwan asserts another common principle: the right of self-determination. Finally, and perhaps most important, powerful domestic forces are at work in both China and the United States that are determined to demonize the other side.
Related
The debate over Laos, almost as intense if not as bitter as the Vietnam debate, has done more than clarify the nature of the American involvement in that patchwork kingdom which has played a secondary but significant role in the Vietnam war while also engaging in its own struggle to survive as a unitary nation. The Senate's dual actions in prohibiting the use of ground combat troops in both Laos and Thailand, and in curbing the right of the President to make a "national commitment" to any country without prior Congressional approval, have temporarily satisfied the common determination to avoid "another Vietnam." But the fundamental problem of how American policy should be made and conducted in Southeast Asia has only begun to be reëxamined.
Reviews the US debate between those favouring constructive engagement and those calling for China's censure and isolation on account of human rights abuses. US policy-makers should seek to extend economic ties while also speaking frankly on human rights issues -- it is impolitic to make the former conditional on the latter.
After September 11, Tokyo was quick to declare its support for the U.S. war in Afghanistan. Much of the promised military assistance quickly evaporated, however, because Japan covets its business ties around the world, even those wth U.S. enemies, and is loath to jeopardize these lucrative links. Tokyo defines security in economic, not just military, terms--even when this means parting company with Washington.
