Unique Topics Tournament: The U.S. should implement a policy of containment with regards to China

Opener: As previously discussed, our term of reference will be Containment, which is defined as the act of preventing the spread of something; actions that are intended to keep an unfriendly government from getting more power; a comprehensive political, economic, and military strategy to deny an enemy nation freedom of access to the international system. From this, it can be logically deduced that a containment plan for the People’s Republic of China will revolve around the complete economic, political, and military containment of Chinese interest in the fields of international politics, trade, military and strategic alliances, etc. First Prong of Containment: Economics The most important argument that can be made against the idea of containment is the mutual need for American and Chinese trade, as well as the external factors of burgeoning Chinese trade with important American allies in the region. In the case of Australia, a significant ally of the United States due to their cultural ties as well as economic and military dependencies, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice remarked “and I think all of us in the region, particularly those of us who are long-standing allies, have a joint responsibility and obligation to try and produce conditions in which the rise of China will be a positive force in international politics, not a negative force”[1]. In response to such a remark, the Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer remarked “Our relationship has its own dynamic, we have our own issues. We have a very good and constructive relationship with China”[2]. This clearly shows that, on top of the already growing Chinese investment in the Australian economy [3], the nation currently holds no reason or need to aid the United States in a policy of containment. As shown by the following graphs, in the fiscal year 2012, the United States saw vast amounts of importing and exporting from Asia and the Pacific. All graphs are from source [4] As it can be seen in the following graphs, the economic ties of the United States to Asia is far greater than the economic ties of the U.S. to Europe, both in importing and exporting. The United States relies heavily on Japanese technology and machinery for automobiles, which would be severely impacted as China has far more pressure on the Japanese than the United States does. In addition, the naval capabilities of the Chinese in the Asian Pacific region can match the naval capabilities of the United States in the Asian Pacific, and thus there may be an issue with trade. As seen from the 5th graph, the United States saw far more economic output in Asia than it did with the European Union or Canada and Mexico. With Canada being a large trade partner in addition to South America and Europe, Asia proves itself to be considerably small when adding all of those regions together. However, when taking into account the fact that Asian exports are larger than exports to any single nation or region, it proves itself to be a formidable trading partner, most importantly in the case of China and Japan, as well as India. Ending or harming trade with Asian nations in order to slow down Chinese expansion would be a severe ramification on us as well, and it is near impossible to field a force that could stop trade with China and India, as China is India’s largest trading partner, as well as China being Japan’s largest trading partner. As seen in the 2nd graph shown, the United States imported $981 billion from Asia Pacific, and thus, a policy that would jeopardize such an economic system would not only harm American consumers as the demand for cheap goods grows, it would also harm Asian economic systems and thus have the consequence of lowering economic investments in the region, while adding to a slower growth of infrastructure, jobs, and a high level of poverty, lawlessness, and a lack of basic goods and services. Additionally, as stated in source [5], “Last year alone, the United States imported US$466 billion in Chinese goods and welcomed more than 274,000 Chinese students to US universities. One out of every three foreign students now holds a Chinese passport.” Seeing as containment would equate to economic aggression, as well as using force and political power to end the growth of the Chinese economy, it can be deduced that containing China economically will be a net negative for China, the United States, our allies, and subsequently, the world. This can be tracked in receding investments, lower stock market growth, ending of trade deals, instilling of tariffs and other economically destructive policies, and a sharp increase in prices of consumer goods and services. On this front, a containment policy against China is asinine. In conclusion, source 7, written by Melanie Hart, Director of China Policy at the Center for American Progress,“On the commercial front, Chinese companies are venturing outward, which creates new partnership opportunities, most notably in China-to-U.S. direct investment. For many Americans, China-to-U.S. foreign direct investment, or FDI, projects provide their first opportunity to directly engage in and benefit from the U.S.-China economic partnership. Many of those projects are providing jobs for American workers: More than 80,000 Americans are now directly employed through a Chinese investment project in the United States. Economic competitiveness has always been an issue in the relationship, including U.S. concern that American jobs will migrate to China. Now the reverse is happening: Chinese companies are finally creating jobs in this nation—a trend that leaders in both countries should support.” Second/Third Prong of Containment: Diplomacy/Military According to The Diplomat, “Given the current situation, even the slightest possibility of U.S. military involvement may push Beijing to alter its expectations and act more decisively and consistently regarding the enduring dispute, all while still trying to prevent the situation from getting worse. After all, recent joint U.S.-Japan military exercises demonstrated to China that the U.S. has already prepared several operation plans for possible military assistance. In fact, China is concerned not only about the probability of U.S. military intervention, but also about the long-term impact of this reassurance toward Japan and the complexity it may add to the current Sino-Japanese standoff.” [6] This adds to the argument of a possible military altercation, which would be disastrous for both the United States, China, and the remainder of the developed world, as China proves itself to be a key ally for developing Asian nations, while the United States is a key partner of developing South American nations. In addition, the source goes on to state that “The same policy and approach will not necessarily work for an emerged China under completely different international conditions. And that’s not even mentioning the challenge of confronting two great powers (China and Russia) simultaneously. However, the current situation suggests that the U.S. is in danger of falling into the “containment trap” – the more it loses its global supremacy and the more it expects support and assistance from its traditional allies, the more obligated the U.S. will feel to push forward hard-line policies toward China. Meanwhile, the U.S. should not underestimate China’s strategic determination and counter-measures to containment.” [6] When looking at policies, we must first find a time in history in which these policies were implemented, match the conditions, and then judge their ability to work in present day. Containment of the USSR led to massive government spending, a failed war in Vietnam, a stalemate in Korea, and alienation of a key power, China. The main point of containment, as it is with China, was to end communist influence and its general spread to neighboring nations, and in the case of Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, North Korea, Cuba, and China, it was a massive failure. What is most interesting to note is that the more peaceful the West has been toward China, the more open they have been to trade and friendship with the West, primarily the United States. It was a direct result of American and Western investment into the Chinese economy that sparked the great industrial growth of China, and it was their own trust in Western investment that led to their market reforms in the 1970s. In addition, these same policies have allowed for trade and movement policies with Vietnam, as well as an easing of tensions with Cuba. [11][6] As stated by [7], “ On the positive side, China is showing an increasing willingness to play a leadership role among nations outside the highly industrialized democratic block. China played a key role in the Iran nuclear negotiations, helping the process through shaky moments, and Chinese nuclear experts helped Iranian officials redesign the Arak plutonium reactor so that it will never produce nuclear fuel. On climate change, China’s willingness to issue bold climate targets with the United States last November challenged other developing nations to follow suit and knocked down a firewall that has hindered global climate negotiations for decades. China also appears to be leaning harder on North Korea. China supported the U.N. Security Council effort to sanction North Korea in response to that nation’s February 2013 nuclear test. On all of these issues, Beijing’s ability to speak to a different audience and from a different angle than the United States has made China a valuable diplomatic partner.“ Conclusion: A containment policy with China would prove disastrous, in economics, diplomacy, and military engagements. Sources: [1]http://goo.gl... [2]http://goo.gl... [3]https://goo.gl... [4]http://goo.gl... [5]http://goo.gl... [6]http://goo.gl... [7]https://goo.gl... [8]http://goo.gl... [9]http://goo.gl... [10]https://goo.gl... [11]https://goo.gl...