"Some people know everything, but that's all they know."
« Newer Older »
June 17, 2012 • 1:10 PM
Where does Mitt Romney stand on China? What kind of China policy will he pursue if elected? (Read the full column at EWRoss.com)
Filed under: China-Taiwan, $1 trillion in U.S. debt, 1989 Tiananmen massacre, 2001 EP3 incident, and military relations, authoritarian China, Beijing, bundling and delaying congressional notifications, carrot and stick approach, china, China is predictable, China policy, China’s military, Chinese dissidents, Chinese political and military leaders, Chinese Reaction to Taiwan Arms Sales, currency manipulation, East Asia, economic, Ed Ross, ewross, George W. Bush, Gov. Romney, inscrutable, intellectual property rights violations, Iran, military expenditures, military overextension, Mitt Romney, north korea, obama administration, People's Republic of China, political, Project 2049 Institute, regional hegemony, Romney campaign, seeking asylum in the U.S. Embassy, situational-dependent decisions, strategic map of the world, trade issues, U.S-Taiwan Business Council, U.S. economic clout, U.S.-China relations. U.S. arms sales to Taiwan, United States, Western Pacific, window of strategic opportunity
LinkedIn Group: International Relations Professional Discussions
Discussion: MITT ROMNEY AND CHINA
I believe that Mitt Romney’s foreign policy platform is better defined in “An American Century -A Strategy to Secure America’s Enduring Interests and Ideals” than in campaign speeches.
“Unless a President Romney sticks to its principles and uses carrots and sticks effectively, his China policy is no likely to be more successful than President Obama’s”, says Ed Ross. Though personally a Republican I do not agree that President Obama’s China policy has been particularly unsuccessful, and that in any event it is too early to judge. There is a lot to challenge in the new Strategic Guidance, but the part on Asia is probably the most acceptable. A successful China policy should be neither confrontational nor particularly accomodating. It should induce using a variety of means including absolute firmness when necessary China to play by the rules. An increased US military presence in Asia will play a stabilizing rather than confrontational role. Containment is not the characteristic of this policy but there could very well be cases where China would have to be contained -such as in the South China Sea dispute.
Posted by Giles Raymond DeMourot
Mr. DeMourot’s comments on the Ross criticism of the current administration’s policy on China ring true. Despite an absence of bluster, the Obama China policy blends firmness with the reality that working toward mutually beneficial partnership with China in economic, political, and security affairs is a far more sensible strategy than confrontation. As for Mr. Romney’s potential policy on China, it is doubtful that we will discern much from his campaign rhetoric. The central themes in it are to avoid specifics and to attack the President. Somewhat more enlightening, perhaps, is to look at who advises Romney. As former Secretary of State Colin Powell suggested, the influence of the neo-cons who brought about our invasion of Iraq and who are now supporting Mr. Romney is disturbing to many, if not to Mr. Ross.
LinkedIn Group: Defense Industries
Declared 2012 Republican Presidential Candidate
Former Governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney
Romney position on China
China is one of the few issues that Romney appears to feel very strongly about. His comments concerning the communist nation have been intensifying over the last year, and he advocates an increasingly hardline approach in handling China.
Posted by Heather Munoz
LinkedIn Group: Strategic Plans and Policy Experts
I doubt that any administration would take a “hard” line with the PRC. The US loves the trade relationship and the strategic ambiguity created by recognizing Beijing while at the same time retaining the Taiwan Relations Act (and occasionally fretting publicly about the PRC’s human rights record). Open conflict of any kind with China benefits neither country. The US may want more favorable financial policies from Beijing, but the PRC has no incentive to comply. Concerns over human rights in China perennially fail to gain political weight in the US and the PRC’s survival depends upon the system of repression they have in place. Finally, neither Beijing or DC want to set the precedent for direct military conflict between two nuclear powers. As a result, leadership in both Beijing and DC work hard to avoid serious conflict. If Romney wins the election I will be interested to see if he backs away from the recent defense planning guidance which called for a realignment of effort to the Pacific and China. I suspect that if pressed Romney would reaffirm (as did Pres. Bush) that there is one China and that both parties across the strait agree on this.
Posted by George Shatzer
A really interesting read. China is facing some tough challenges ahead. It’s population is rapidly aging, it’s economy is slowing down and neighboring countries are becoming more competitive, particularly in the area of cheap labor. This make for flexibility and maneuverability for engaging China.
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.
Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.