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

IntroductionWhile my opponent is able to lay out some of the issues that the Western world and the United States, in particular, faces from Chinese expansion, he is unable to provide rational arguments in reference to our ability and desire to contain the spread of Chinese influence militarily, diplomatically, and economically.First Contention - SophistryThe first mistake made by my opponent is his belief in the ability to contain China, as well as the idea that we must inhibit their growth. What he fails to realize, in effect, is that China has already grown to a size that we are not able to contain. Their vast economic influence in Asia, as well as in the American import economy, in addition to the Chinese military capabilities and expanding technological prowess shows them to be a nation with formidable strength and influence. In fact, the central argument made by my opponent is the belief that "The future of Asia can go two ways: restricted U.S. involvement in a trade theatre to be dominated by the unstable behemoth that is China, or free U.S. involvement to facilitate capitalistic self-determination." The issue with this statement is the fact that its factually incorrect, as the future of Asia is already dominated, and has been for some time, by Chinese influence. It is illogical to state that the United States, without incurring great financial burdens, could contain a regional superpower in its own territory. In fact, our reliance on Chinese exports in a 5:2 ratio with their reliance on American exports shows that any financial strain on the Chinese economy would impact our own as well. [1]In addition to this inane argument, my opponent states that "This all relies on our ability to keep lines of communication open with Asian nations and continue to trade with them on a regular basis. However, the goal is distorted as China creates institutions, such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank." What my opponent fails to understand is that the United States government specifically requested American allies, which most of the Bank is comprised of, to simply not join. The opposite of this occurred, with the United States being left out of a financially profitable investment feature that could have brought enormous wealth to property owners and allowed for great investment, and thus more American influence, in Asia. In fact, the AIIB, as it was argued by the various American allies that joined as founding members, was going to launch anyway. Allies such as Japan and South Korea refused to join, but nations such as Britain, Germany, Russia, India, Thailand, and Australia have all signed up as founding members, totaling the Bank to be 37 members strong. According to The Economist, "Despite the obvious need, America has, either by design or ineptitude, turned the AIIB into a test of diplomatic strength. That has proved a disaster. Its officials have, anonymously, rebuked Britain for its “constant accommodation” of China—and many observers would agree that they have a point. But that its closest allies have proved so keen to court China’s favour and so willing to flout American views suggests America picked the wrong fight." [2]Contention 2 - Free TradeMy opponent fails to understand the definition of free trade, and this is a downside to his argument, as evidenced above. The Chinese economy benefits greatly from free trade deals, and will continue to benefit from the flow of capital into the Chinese economy. Therefore, it's in their rational self interest to stay cooperative and continue their free trade policies, as they have been for quite some time.In addition, what my opponent fails to understand is that making economic ties with nations in Asia, such as India, is not a form of containment. In fact, China is India's largest trading partner, and our economic involvement in India will not be met with an Indian withdrawing from Chinese trade deals. In fact, it will only bolster India's competitiveness and ingenuity, and thus will create more demand for investment companies in rich nations, such as China, to invest into the growing economy of developing nations, due to their larger margin of return on financial investments. In totality, it will always be that the land connection of the Chinese economy to nations such as India and Russia will benefit them greatly, and will be impossible for the United States to stop as it would violate sovereighnty of various nations. In addition, the Chinese are spending over $1 trillion [3][6] to rebuild the Silk Road, which will make a large connection between China and its Asian partners. This is a boon for China and the United States, as the higher standard of living in Middle Eastern nations allows for safer investment from Western powers as well as an ease on radicalism and fundamentalism in the region. For the United States to intervene and stop Chinese investment, it would have to have ties to the Middle East, which it does not, as the U.S. is seen as an Imperialist nation, as well as being the regional superpower, which it is not, as the Chinese have far more influence. Third Contention - Bilateral TradeThe following will be in reference to these remarks - "Why does this justify a policy of containment?... Ensuring a spot at the table in future world affairs is a vital part of American foreign policy, and it can best be done by containing the reach of the increasingly powerful influence of China." (Meaning all words from 'Why' to China')Firstly, my opponent provides incorrect information, which should be held against him by the individuals evaluating his argument, as I shall do myself. He states that we have approximately $77 billion in trade with Japan, when in fact this is not the case. According to Census.gov [4][5], in 2015 we exported $62 billion worth of goods, while we imported over $160 billion in goods. Therefore, our trade partnership with the Japense is far more important, and any aggression to the Chinese will impact the Japanese as well, since the Chinese have far more influence over the Japanese economy. In addition to this, my opponent states that for our own economic sake, the Chinese cannot be allowed to dictate trade in the region. What he fails to realize is that the Chinese are and will always be able to dictate trade in Asia, as they are the dominant superpower, and the Asian economies are far more dependent on the Chinese economy than they are on the American economy. Therefore, it is foolish to state such naivety as was said by my opponent, since our economy does not falter from Chinese leadership of the Asian financial sector. In fact, the Chinese leadership has allowed for Western consumer products to drop in prices, all the while allowing for much faster and more efficient production of these consumer goods. It's financially irresponsible, might I add, to believe that we must be the main dictatorial power in Asia in reference to trade, as this is both an impossibility and an over-extension of our jurisdiction.Contention 4 - Co-ExistenceMy opponent states that we must intervene militarily to trump Chinese militarism in various regions of Asia. What he fails to understand is that not only is this idea hypocritical and contradictory to the values set beforehand, but it's also inane. The capacity for the United States to stop Chinese alliances and ties with the Russians and North Koreans is very slim, as we do not have the ability to dictate to such a formidable power what alliances they must and must not enter into. The consequences of American actions pertaining to China and Russia drive these nations to be far more diplomatic than before, and simply believing the Orthodox stance of "their ideology and goal is bad, therefore they must be stopped" is simply naive. Historically, American diplomacy with the Chinese has been far more benefitial for both parties involved, as well as outside factors, such as developing Asian economies and the Western financial sector. Our continued diplomacy and friendship with the Chinese is far better than militarism and belligerency. Contention 5 - EspionageWhile my opponent is correct in stating that the Chinese, whether government sanctioned or not, commit espionage on American corporations, he is incorrect in his drawing of an irrelevant conclusion, which is fallacious. Intellectual property rights, and property rights in general have become far more commonplace in China and the rest of the developing world, as they have realized that investment and the flow of capital occurs best when property rights and not infringed upon. For our own sake, as well as the sake of the Chinese, it is monumentally idiotic to state that we must contain the Chinese as a result of their espionage. Containment has absolutely nothing to do with Chinese espionage, and the policy will not help us either. In fact, less economic and diplomatic ties with the Chinese will have the opposite of the desired effect, as their lack of American investment and innovation will create demand for more espionage and more theft of American technology to fuel their own technological gap, that could be easily filled with American capital and investment. In addition, diplomacy with the Chinese, as it has been for the past 40 years since Mao died, will be far more beneficial for American interest than militarism and containment.As shown by the following source [7], the TPP is yet another example of American idiocy in trade,“This zero-sum approach to U.S.-Chinese relations leads China to respond in kind. To counter TPP, China is pursuing a Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership and an APEC-based [Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation] free trade agreement". Therefore, I have proven to my opponent why containment of the Chinese in these particular ways is idiotic and foolish. Sources:[1]https://goo.gl...;[2]http://goo.gl...;[3]http://goo.gl...;[4]https://goo.gl...;[5]http://goo.gl...[6]https://goo.gl...;[7]http://goo.gl...;