^ You are a white guy in NY, so you don’t get it.
I’m just explaining how it is; the Chinese offer better terms, and they are Asian.
Yeah, I’m not saying this is good for the Philippines, particularly in the current backdrop with tensions in the South China sea and China growing into their own, this only benefits China who is playing the Philippines. This upcoming decade would be the first one where I believe the American bases and their role in coordinating Asian powers to balance the rise of China would be net useful to those nations. China is culturally and historically a much more overtly exertive power than the US when the chips are on their side and this is coupled with their current state as a an ascending power which typically comes with bolder moves. Swaying nearby nations to abandon bases also serves a role to China and Russia which have partnered to work against the impact of the Aegis systems. Removing bases from the region may remove future land based nodes and radar alert installations from the network that would be in proximity and thereby reduce the effectiveness.
All that being said, I’m still against the interventionism which tends to create more friction while also adding trigger points for escalation. When I think of all the money and effort that could have been focused on education and infrastructure in the US that went into creating a massive take all comers military it’s just mind boggling.
Yeah, as finance people we should know it doesn’t matter what the US would like to do, financially they are at the end of their rope and must withdraw. Almost all USG revenue is “poof gone”, paid benefits owed to citizens, paid interest on debt (which will go up), and money wasted on military. They only spend roughly 20% on their own country operations, and so internally things are crumbling.
One way or the other they are going to withdraw. As far as timing, a big shift happened during the 2008 event, CN up, US down. I think the same thing happens when the next bubble pops, it’s painful globally, but CN leaps ahead again while the US is distracted negotiating USG default and fighting Trumper civil war. 
This is a rather odd development given the Philippines won its arbitration case against China just a few months ago over the Scarborough Shoal. Duterte’s outbursts are quite shocking to his own senior staff, many of whom also think his strategy is rather reckless and very damaging to Filipino sovereignty. Someone else said it right that Duterte is the Filipino version of Trump and actually is what a good number of my Filipino friends back in NYC are saying.
PA, your anti-American tirade and embrace of all things China is as predictable as it is disappointing.
You really must be in some bizarro world to believe that China has been “honorable.” China has made a land grab for the entire South China Sea, disregarded sovereignty of even its own short-list of supposed allies (Vietnam), increased the potential for war (establishing ADI zones), and backtracking on its promises in Hong Kong.
Ya that sounds really “respectful” and “less hands all over your stuff.”
That nations are increasingly engaging China is more of a function of China’s growing economic and military size rather than buying into Xie’s strategy. As such you will continue to see many countries still looking to America to act as a counterweight until China either becomes more reasonable or, worse, gets so powerful that it does whatever it wants.
Americans think these two things are the same. Hence the confusion.
Anyhow I think we will see the US get more aggressive. Despite all this talk of isolationism and being against interventionism, Americans want a strong US foreign policy, instead of getting “outmaneuvered” by China and Russia. Speak softly, and carry a big dick.
That’s where Hillary is going to come in. The Assad situation is ominously looking like the Milosevic situation early on.
I see it more as an eccentric local leader playing one large power off of the other for whatever his personal agenda is. I don’t argue against the idea that China made a more appealing deal to him, but it’s far from clear that this is better for the Philippines, or it’s the Philippines finally having the strength and opportunity to throw off an economic oppressor.
And the argument that the Philippines feels better in China’s hands because China is Asian is just invented horsesh!t. If it were Taiwan saying “please, no more security guarantees, if you please,” you might have a point, or even South Korea saying “We prefer to be ruled Kim Jong Un to having a nice world market to sell our phones and TV screens to, and Japan is happy to defend us if need be” But the Philippine culture is quite different to those Asian values you refer to.
Sure, they want to be part of the Asia economic scene, and they don’t want to antagonize China if they don’t have to, but that doesn’t mean they’ve done this because they think China is more honorable and has those great Asian values that form the basis of what PA imagines is Filipino life.
Just when I think I’ve seen the limits of your absurd arrogance, you manage to push the bar a little farther up.
As usual, your analysis is based on your pathetic preconceptions, not on actual data.
China’s last dominant cycle had them building a wall to keep the rest of the world out.
USA’s emergence onto the global stage was followed by bloody coups in Latin America and Africa directly contributing to the rise of iconic figures like Che Guevara, a flawed ideological war in Vietnam, indiscriminate bombing of Laos and looking the other way as Pakistan nuclear armed itself to counteract India’s alignment with the Soviets as well as being an enabler for Israeli policies that are in direct violation of international law. The disillusion at American (and Soviet) interference led to a massive bloc of countries forming the Non-Alignment movt. or ‘Third World’ which has had effects lasting till today.
I honestly have no idea what you mean when you say “China is historically more assertive that the USA”.
So, we’re trying to build a wall too.
Those are valid criticisms of US Foreign policy, however they are embedded in a larger conflict called the Cold War which the US participated in and did not independently orchestrate, nor was free to unalign from. US foreign policy can face a similar criticism today via the War on Terror.
However it seems unlikely that China would react much differently to similar kinds of attacks happening in its soil.
And don’t forget Tibet, missiles launched across the Straits of Taiwan. It’s not as if China has been a regional pussy cat since the Wall was completed around 220 BC. Nor is it the case that the China’s territory has always stopped at the Wall and never expanded beyond it.
It is true, however, that they did pay for their Wall. Well done. Well done indeed!
We don’t really know whether China will be more invasive than the US or not when it becomes more dominant and involved internationally. We do know that China is not really concerned much on the human rights aspect of things. The US has done some pretty nasty stuff, it is true, but we are at least embarrassed by them because we see them as expressions that are contrary to our values. That is one reason that the US withdrew teirnsupport from the Marcos regime Its an imperfect process, but I don’t see the Chinese as being responsive to public pressure from their own outraged citizenry, to the extent that the citizenry can be outraged about this kind of thing in he first place.
It is also true that trade deals with the US often privilege US corporations who lobby to get our representatives to negotiate in their favor. I don’t see China as being any different or more benevolent in this regard, except perhaps their needs are different, and their corporate and government issues are more aligned.
I think the bigger difference is that US Foreign policy does have a kind of export of democratic/liberal values aspect that is missing from more traditionally realpolitik negotiators like China. This can get overridden when Cold War or War on Terror objectives collide (and for the Philippines, Mindanao can be problematic from a War on Terror standpoint). It also can get overridden when corporate lobbies get too strong.
I think the criticism here is more that if China is at the bargaining table, it’s going to be a realpolitik kind of bargaining process, like the commodity and farmland leases in East Africa, where the African government gets paid, but the Chinese ship in their own engineers and workers and miners or farmers to extract their products. US negotiators have traditionally tried to spread industrialization and ensure that here are positive externalities for the communities (though it’s a lot less if it’s just a military base, for security reasons).
Anyway, there’s a lot to criticize in US Foreign Policy, but I think BS is saying (and I would be inclined to agree) that as global hegemons go, the US has governed with a lighter touch than almost any other in history, particularly if you control for a country’s military capability vs its actual use of that capability. China has yet to prove what kind of hegemon it would be, but there is nothing I see its historical and cultural tradition that suggests it would abandon its hierarchical view of power and unquestioning submission to authority in the absence of a countervailing power, whoever that may be.
Basically what BChad said, but I see your point too.
Sure, it isn’t much different from what went down in Texas .
Saying you are ‘embarrassed’ by them as a differentiating factor has no value when the cold hard truth is that historically far more atrocities have been committed by the Americans in the form of racial oppression, ideological wars or self-interests than the Chinese despite the fact that you adhere to human rights. At that point you start questioning if it’s just a buzzword with a caveat saying rules and restrictions apply.
The point about American negotiation policies being altruistic to promote Industrialization and democracy is laughably naive, there are ample examples of people who wanted to bring those very things to their nations but were either assassinated or overthrown by the Americans because they did not tow the line. It’s the kind of reasoning that brings to mind Che’s line in the UN Assembly - " Western Civilization disguises behind it’s showy facade a picture of hyenas and jackals".
I do agree with the crux of your post that there is no way to tell if China will be a benign great power when they hold the cards, only time can answer that. I just took issue with the statement made that they have been more assertive than the Americans in the past which is patently untrue whether or not America was dragged into a cold war or undertook other questionable wars on their own accord like the ones on Drugs and Terror.
One can dig up plenty of Chinese oppression if one scratches the surface. Thirty million in orchestrated starvation during the Great Leap Forward seems like just a start.
There’s plenty to criticize about the US, but it still looks good in a comparative light. Why do refugees run to e West rather than to China or the Soviet Union (during those times).
I believe we were talking about external assertiveness :).
The comment regarding racial oppression was about Reagan’s implicit support to the South-African Apartheid regime until the governments position became untenable with their unpopularity not a reference to American slavery
As to why refugees run to the West rather than China? If I was forced to answer, I would have to say monetary opportunity and support infrastructure available but what does this have to do with how aggressive or not a nation is on the global stage which is what we were talking about?
I don’t think the US is a malicious hegemon, but a careless and somewhat incompetent one.
HA! Just when I think you guys can’t get any more fantasy-land.
That’s the thing, Americans are NOT ashamed. Because 1) they have no clue what they are doing around the world and thus can’t be ashamed of things they do not know, 2) they don’t care about anyone but themselves, and 3) they simply have no shame. They just re-frame reality to fit their false values “oh that, we are helping those poor countries”.
Yeah we do. See current state, China is less invasive, that reflects how they do things. Their philosophies of inaction and non-involvement go back thousands of years. The US is basically the UK; colonize. Didn’t work for the UK, won’t work for the US. You can’t hold those colonies unless your presence is invited by them and beneficial to them. Which it is not, see Palantir quote from pg1.
…then there is no bargain. Competition resolves mispricings, price goes up, and the US can’t match China’s bid. 
I think it’s hard to make this claim either way. You can certainly point that the US has been more assertive across the globe than China has. Meaning it has been involved in a far higher number of countries on an absolute basis.
However, a country the size of China doesn’t just magically appear. It was consolidated over a long history of numerous wars in which prior states have ceased to exist. As such, China’s seemingly insular focus is more due to its need to manage such a large populous over an expansive geography, which of course was created by expansionist efforts. Many of the great empires (Han, Tang, and Qing dynasties) ended with civil war or “invasion” in some form, which highlights that China was very busy trying to keep its relativelt newfound territories in tact. Unlike other empires in history, China actually did a great job at keeping it all in-place (hence why modern day China is so big).
China though, has sought out what we would consider foreign land today; Tibet, Vietnam, India, Japan (Yuan dynasty, though under Monguls), Mongolia, N/S Korea, Russia (parts of Manchuria).
Taken all in this light, China indeed has historically been fairly assertive. As others have said, the worry with China as a global hegemony is an unproven track record and so far dubious recent intentions (e.g. South China Sea land grab). The US hardly has a stellar record, but has demonstrated some good intentions and has help foster global stability and economic growth. To be fair, China is very young in its position so perhaps it can do better.
See my post.
Americans really eat up the media spin.
You guys don’t seem to grasp the US, a dangerous malevolent force (which could be led by Trump in a few weeks), has “grabbed” all over Asia. Everyone knows as the US continues to fall from power they will resort to even more immoral tactics than they already employ (and do so shamelessly, Bchad). Eventually the allies (China, Russia, etc) will need to defeat them, and split them up like Nazi Germany.
These are defensive moves by China, they have done so in the least intrusive way possible, but they have no choice but to defend themselves against these Asia invaders.
Nicely put post, though I would change the end calling China young (seems hard to do with 2000-5000 years of civilization there), and simply instead that it is still fairly early in this particular dynastic cycle,
I think that given that we also have to contextualize our historical comparisons for the capacity of power projection vs the use of that capacity for territorial enlargement and/or economic extraction. Part of the reason that China looks relatively quiet in recent years is that it is still recovering from the period of “the humiliations” in the 1860s, which was due to western expansion under Britain, but also the decline of Qing administration, and then pounded further by Japanese invasion and a failed experiment with Communism. For the current government, it makes a lot of strategic sense to be quiet and attend to its own affairs and let the US handle being the world’s policeman, much as it made sense for the US to act the same way vis-a-vis Britain during the interwar period.
Responding to zidhai, the enforced famine reference was a counter to the what I understood as comments about African Americans and history of slavery (wasn’t sure if you were including Native Americans in that or not). Those pieces of internal politics are a huge stain on the US history, but I brought up the fact that China has its own moments that are horrific, too, because the comparison seemed to suggest that China couldn’t possibly have done anything bad like that.