US-China Alliance Profitable for Both; Would It Be Ethical?

[liberateamerica]

A potential US-China alliance would have much to offer for both countries; that's for sure. With the Chinese and American economies the most powerful in the world, and the American and Chinese militaries (two of the) largest and most powerful in the world, a multifaceted, loose union EU-style would create arguably the strongest and most powerful conglomerate nation in the world. Consider some statistics:
US GDP: $11,750,000,000,000
China GDP: $7,262,000,000,000
(equals $19,012,000,000,000 or $19.01 T)
Compare this to:
Japan - $3,745,000,000,000
or
S. Korea - $925,100,000,000
or
EU - $12,865,602,000,000*
*The EU has a nominally larger GDP than the US, but in purchasing power parity, the EU and US economies are the same. The US economy is, however, a little bigger than the EU in PPP ($12.36 T for US compared to $12.18 T for the EU). In addition, consider that the EU contains 50% more people and 25 partially separate countries compared to 1 individual country.

Now let's look at some military comparisons.
The US has a military of ~2.8 M and China has a military size of 7,024,000 M, added together that makes approx. 10 M troops.

Japan: 239,420
Britain: ~225,000
N. Korea: 5,995,000
Iran: 11,770,000

The Japan Self-Defence Forces plus the British Armed Forces plus the North Korean People's Armed Forces is equivalent to about 3/5 of the amount of troops the US and China could project. In addition, the US and China have advanced military technology.

However, would an alliance with Beijing be ethical or applicable? The most executions in the world take place in China, and human rights violations are still rampant. There is still a bit of residual mutual distrust between the two governments left behind from the Cold War and the Taiwan issue.

Do the benefits outweigh the risks and negatives? Should the US ally itself with China? Please explain your opinions.

 

[Kandahar]

Depends what you mean by "alliance." I think that maintaining good relations between the two countries is of supreme importance and is greatly beneficial for both countries. It would be unethical to NOT try to maintain a good relationship with China. But if you're talking about an alliance in the sense of helping China overtake Taiwan, the answer is no.

As some famous person said, "There are no such thing as alliances. There are only common goals." The United States and China can certainly find common ground on most international issues.

 

[jfuh]

Depends what you mean by "alliance." I think that maintaining good relations between the two countries is of supreme importance and is greatly beneficial for both countries. It would be unethical to NOT try to maintain a good relationship with China. But if you're talking about an alliance in the sense of helping China overtake Taiwan, the answer is no.

As some famous person said, "There are no such thing as alliances. There are only common goals." The United States and China can certainly find common ground on most international issues.

I'll second that.
A US China alliance will lead to not only economic benefits but also socio and political benefits for both sides. The Us dragging China to more western beliefs of freedom while China forces the US to more technocratic development of social structure.

The most pressing matter between the two is the question of environmental protection. China is projected to over take the US in greenhouse emmissions by the 2010's This is a huge problem and is already creating a headache in stability on the international community. The US opposes Iran and courts the Saudis saturating most of those fields, while the Chinese are courting Iran for thier energy. A US China alliance would most likely resolve through mutual goals these problems.

But the knife in the middle remains Taiwan. I'll be damned if ever to allow for a hostile take over of my fatherland by the PRC. Long live the Republic of China.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Definitely profitable for both, though I question if our long-term strategic interests are really in-line. China's an emerging superpower, and I believe that we are a fading one. We may wish to avoid becoming too dependent upon them.

Taiwain is a sticking point, but I think as long as China realizes how much an invasion would cost them-- diplomatically-- the issue will not come between us. I think given recent reforms that China is in the process of liberalizing, and will eventually either come to terms with an independent Taiwan or be able to reassimilate peacefully.

I don't see any ethical objections with an alliance to China. People seem to forget that we were allied with the Soviets in World War 2 and Saddam Hussein all through the Eighties.

Of course, an increasingly militant Japan is an interesting wild card in the mix-- since our interests are most definitely better aligned with Japan than with China, and relations between the two are strained.

 

[jfuh]

Just a few points I'd like to touch up on if I may.

Definitely profitable for both, though I question if our long-term strategic interests are really in-line. China's an emerging superpower, and I believe that we are a fading one. We may wish to avoid becoming too dependent upon them.

I don't know if we are a fading super power

Taiwain is a sticking point, but I think as long as China realizes how much an invasion would cost them-- diplomatically-- the issue will not come between us. I think given recent reforms that China is in the process of liberalizing, and will eventually either come to terms with an independent Taiwan or be able to reassimilate peacefully.

Independence of the island is just plain stupid; in fact it would cause severe instability that is greatly tied in with Japanese imperialism. I'll elaborate later down what I mean by this.

I don't see any ethical objections with an alliance to China. People seem to forget that we were allied with the Soviets in World War 2 and Saddam Hussein all through the Eighties.

Add onto that, we trained OBL to fight another super power and he succeeded.

Of course, an increasingly militant Japan is an interesting wild card in the mix-- since our interests are most definitely better aligned with Japan than with China, and relations between the two are strained.

A militant Japan is bad news not only for the states, but everyone in the region. Korea, China, Vietnam, Phillippines, indonesia, Malaysia, all have very bitter memories and distrust towards Japan - the fact that they have a war crimes memorial shrine in the middle of thier capital city with governmental leaders paying visit on a regular basis does little to help alleviate the situation. However, for all it's economic prowress, Japan has become gradually become irrelevent, both due to internal economic reasons and external market competition factors. Japan still maintains a high level of protectionism of it's economy instead of allowing the free market evolve and shape it's structure. To the best of my knowledge, only the US comes close to completely opened market to allow for free reform - though farm subsidies just don't work, seriously.

 

[Morrow]

It would be totally unethical for China to ally itself with the running dogs of Imperialism like America! How can you even suggest that China would stoop to associating with these counter-revolutionaries!

 

[liberateamerica]

It would be totally unethical for China to ally itself with the running dogs of Imperialism like America! How can you even suggest that China would stoop to associating with these counter-revolutionaries!

China hasn't been truly Communist since Deng Xiaoping. Furthermore, as the moderating influence of Western society and new ideas flows into China, it will become even less so. In addition, America isn't imperialist. It has not acquired any territory since 1898. (besides Alaska and Hawai'i, but they weeren't taken forcibly, as 'imperialism' connotates forcible seizure of land.)

 

[Morrow]

China hasn't been truly Communist since Deng Xiaoping. Furthermore, as the moderating influence of Western society and new ideas flows into China, it will become even less so. In addition, America isn't imperialist. It has not acquired any territory since 1898. (besides Alaska and Hawai'i, but they weeren't taken forcibly, as 'imperialism' connotates forcible seizure of land.)

I see I need to get you a new sarcasm meter for Christmas...

 

[Deng for president]

I concurr with the fact that it will be most profitable, for the U.S. to gain a machinery pushing trade and production to new peaks, and for the PRoC in order to battle inflation as their economy steadily booms upward.

Regarding the human rights issue, I do believe that many fail to see the whole picture; China is a country emerging into the democratic world. Sure, corrupting is ever present, but more and more liberal thoughts are accepted; censorship ties are being loosened, and the rest of the world is no nonger a place interdite.
As liberalism and democracy springs forwards, the human rights violations have been lowered. Also, one could see the economical partnership between the giants as a weapon to influence the chinese government battling these violations in order to maintain a profitable deal.

 

[jfuh]

China hasn't been truly Communist since Deng Xiaoping. Furthermore, as the moderating influence of Western society and new ideas flows into China, it will become even less so. In addition, America isn't imperialist. It has not acquired any territory since 1898. (besides Alaska and Hawai'i, but they weeren't taken forcibly, as 'imperialism' connotates forcible seizure of land.)

It wouldn't be a long shot to categorize Iraq and Afganistan as territories gained by America.

 

[Morrow]

I concurr with the fact that it will be most profitable, for the U.S. to gain a machinery pushing trade and production to new peaks, and for the PRoC in order to battle inflation as their economy steadily booms upward.

Regarding the human rights issue, I do believe that many fail to see the whole picture; China is a country emerging into the democratic world. Sure, corrupting is ever present, but more and more liberal thoughts are accepted; censorship ties are being loosened, and the rest of the world is no nonger a place interdite.
As liberalism and democracy springs forwards, the human rights violations have been lowered. Also, one could see the economical partnership between the giants as a weapon to influence the chinese government battling these violations in order to maintain a profitable deal.

It would be a mistake to confuse Chinas recent 'liberalizing' with something good. China is going to become a Democracy, but they are going to do it in their own way. In a way that will seem very foreign to us Westerners. They still want state control, and they have it, because thats the way people think there. They don't want to lose that by 'liberalizing'.

 

[Deng for president]

But then we come to the point of compromise; will the democratic system that will eventually be the next step of evolution not be good enough? Sure, state property will not entirely be removed, but that will not hamper anything but the economy of the state. If democracy is achieved in a way that all citizen are content with, will that not be acceptable? Sure, the Communist party will most likely remain the only legal party, but the situation today with electing presidents are much like a two-party system anyway, the candidates differ in opinions wery widely. Creating a system of several parties could also be devastating, as a country the size of china could easily attempt to split into independent regions at the first taste of freedom. And in the country's modern economy all provinces are dependent on each other, therefore any new autonomous region would be doomed.

 

[jfuh]

It would be a mistake to confuse Chinas recent 'liberalizing' with something good. China is going to become a Democracy, but they are going to do it in their own way. In a way that will seem very foreign to us Westerners. They still want state control, and they have it, because thats the way people think there. They don't want to lose that by 'liberalizing'.

That's the way that ppl think there? What is the way that ppl think there with relation to a liberalized democracy that is so different from westerners?
State control is not anything that the ppl there want, it's what the government there wishes to pursue and continue on.
If not every government in the world wishes it could have.

 

[Kandahar]

That's the way that ppl think there? What is the way that ppl think there with relation to a liberalized democracy that is so different from westerners?
State control is not anything that the ppl there want, it's what the government there wishes to pursue and continue on.
If not every government in the world wishes it could have.

I think collective and/or authoritarian forms of government are very popular in Asia, even among democracies. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, etc.

Therefore, Chinese democracy definitely would be very different from Western democracy. I don't necessarily see that as a problem though. Both cultures have things that they can learn from each other. As long as the Chinese are happy with China's government, whether it be collectivist or individualist, democracy or dictatorship, it's fine with me. As long as China doesn't threaten the rest of the world (and so far they've been pretty non-confrontational except for Taiwan), it's really up to them to determine their government for themselves.

 

[jfuh]

I think collective and/or authoritarian forms of government are very popular in Asia, even among democracies. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, etc.

Therefore, Chinese democracy definitely would be very different from Western democracy. I don't necessarily see that as a problem though. Both cultures have things that they can learn from each other. As long as the Chinese are happy with China's government, whether it be collectivist or individualist, democracy or dictatorship, it's fine with me. As long as China doesn't threaten the rest of the world (and so far they've been pretty non-confrontational except for Taiwan), it's really up to them to determine their government for themselves.

For your analysis of Japan and S. Korea my disagreement is that the ppl of those nations do not want that form of government anymore than you or I ever would. It's not a cultural aspect, it's simply the way it was facilitated in set up by the US to counter the threat of the communists.
Taiwan on the other hand is far from any authoritarian and or collective government as can be evidenced in particular by the going ons these days.
Taiwan after all elects its president through direct populist vote. Something that even we do not do here - long over due.

 

[jujuman13]

Quote
(A US China alliance will lead to not only economic benefits but also socio and political benefits for both sides. The Us dragging China to more western beliefs of freedom while China forces the US to more technocratic development of social structure.)

I do not see China as being remotely willing to adopt the so called democratic idea's of the US in particular.
Nor do I see China as being remotely interested in any type of economic union with the US.

It is true that the US have attempted to interest China in Military matters to the extent of permitting Chinese Military personnel access to the various command centers within the US, there has been no reciprocation by the Chinese.

I believe that for China to agree any type of union with the US, it would be with China being the Superior / Senior Nation within that union and this would by and large be deserved, as China is the more populous, has a larger well trained Military, has attained access to more of the worlds resources and is a far faster growing economy.
China cannot but help seeing the US as a declining Power both Militarily as well as economically.

What would China gain out of such a union? very little that they will not in any case (over time) achieve without such a union,

Much is made of exporting western values into the Chinese physche, does China want these values?

Much is made of exposing China to western style democracy, I doubt the Chinese would want or welcome a multi-party system, certainly their pragmatic view of Communist Government coupled with Capitalist wealth seems to be working admirably albeit with more than a few instances of Non ethical treatment of human rights.

Yes the idea of a Sino-US partnership would appear to be a brilliant idea and would undoubtedly result in the largest nation on the planet, one that would be ideally suited to managing all world affairs.

Will it ever come about..............................peacefully?