Check our Facebook page for discussions about ediplomacy, and also for responses to Abe Denmark's piece on China containment. A selection, beginning with Sugar Caine:
True – the US has made a significant contribution to China. But past facts does not change present reality.
'No one practices "a little" containment. It's like pregnancy: you're either containing, or you're not.'This may have been true during the Cold War when the blocs were economically independent. In the globalised world however, the question 'how do you deal toughly with your banker?' has forced a redefinition of containment and the Pacific pivot is the prime example. Australia is walking a fine line. I agree with Geoff Raby. We need to be 'clear about our intentions and predictable in our behaviour towards China.'
Adrian Vandermay:
Definitely an open and honest approach is the way to go. I too disagree with the article. Its all well and good to say that America has no interest in containing China, when the evidence used is perhaps misinterpreted. What other options were open to the US other than support?? If the US didn't support China they would be worse off now economically. Lets not forget who bailed the US out of economic trouble.
China is now too big and powerful for the same containment imposed on the Soviets and China operates differently to the Soviet Union. They are more capitalist, they are interested in international trade. The US is attempting to maintain the power balance it has enjoyed in Asia since WWII and the status as the world's only superpower since the fall of the Soviet Union. Its time for things to change, I think.
