US vs China

อ่านหัวข้อก่อนหน้า อ่านหัวข้อถัดไป Go down

US vs China

ตั้งหัวข้อ  sunny on Tue Aug 10, 2010 10:17 am



A resurgent China is baring its teeth at the once indomitable US Pacific fleet. The certainty of US hegemony over this vast ocean is being challenged.

It is being driven by twin factors: the rise of China as a Pacific power and the decline of imperial America.

The first is undeniable. China is working feverishly to create a navy and a land-based anti-ship missile system that will prevent the US 7th Fleet from dominating its territorial waters, including Taiwan.The second assumption is more contentious. But there is a growing view among some of the world's foremost thinkers that the American empire is now in inexorable decline and that the sun will soon set on the US era of hegemony in the Asia-Pacific.

_________________
ท้องทะเลและมหาสมุทร ไม่เคยปราศจากคลื่นฉันใด
มนุษย์อยู่ร่วมในสังคมเดียวกัน โดยความคิดเห็นที่แตกต่างกัน ย่อมสร้างผลกระทบต่อสังคมได้ฉันนั้น

sunny

จำนวนข้อความ : 3511
Registration date : 28/06/2008

ดูข้อมูลส่วนตัว

ขึ้นไปข้างบน Go down

Re: US vs China

ตั้งหัวข้อ  sunny on Tue Aug 10, 2010 10:20 am


US F-22 Raptor fighter

"Washington has little choice but to try to save itself by slashing defence spending"

This Pacific retreat, they argue, will not be voluntary but will be forced on Washington by financial pressures as the world superpower teeters under the burden of its $US1.47 trillion deficit, now equal to 10 per cent of GDP.

Last week, Harvard economist Niall Ferguson delivered a stark warning about the imperial decline that affects great powers when they are no longer able to manage their economies.

Giving the John Bonython Lecture at the Centre for Independent Studies in Sydney, Ferguson warned that the US economy is now so mired in debt that Washington has little choice but to try to save itself by slashing defence spending.

"The US is on a completely unsustainable fiscal course with no apparent political means of self-correcting," he said.

"Military expenditure is the item most likely to be squeezed to compensate because, unlike mandatory entitlements [such as social security], defence spending is discretionary."

He points out that the US Congressional Budget Office's latest projections say debt could rise above 90 per cent of GDP by 2020 and to an astonishing 344 per cent by 2050 -- a figure that would see net interest payments become a crippling 85 per cent of revenue.

"What if the sudden waning in American power that I fear brings to an abrupt end the era of hegemony in the Asia-Pacific region? Are we ready for such a dramatic change in the global balance of power?" he asks.

A decade of rapid increases in military spending have spluttered to a halt, and with US combat forces withdrawing from Iraq and due to leave Afghanistan from 2014, the mood is ripe for cuts in military spending.

Even Defence Secretary Robert Gates admits "the gusher [on military spending] has been turned off and will stay off for a good period of time".

According to a report last month by Washington's Centre for Strategic and International Studies, the legacy of the global financial crisis will be to stymie US defence spending in the long term relative to nations such as China, Russia and India.

_________________
ท้องทะเลและมหาสมุทร ไม่เคยปราศจากคลื่นฉันใด
มนุษย์อยู่ร่วมในสังคมเดียวกัน โดยความคิดเห็นที่แตกต่างกัน ย่อมสร้างผลกระทบต่อสังคมได้ฉันนั้น

sunny

จำนวนข้อความ : 3511
Registration date : 28/06/2008

ดูข้อมูลส่วนตัว

ขึ้นไปข้างบน Go down

Re: US vs China

ตั้งหัวข้อ  sunny on Tue Aug 10, 2010 10:22 am


US-South Korean joint naval fleet in their joint drill.
US' worries in the Asia-Pacific

The US will this year spend more than $US700 billion on national defence, more than the next 34 highest spending countries in the world combined.

The US 7th fleet in the western Pacific has more than 50 warships, 350 aircraft and 60,000 marines at its disposal, including 18 permanently forward-deployed warships operating from Japan and Guam.

But what troubles some Americans is that China's naval build-up poses a more immediate risk to US naval operations close to the Chinese coast, raising doubts about the ability of US forces to defend Taiwan.

As the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, said last month, China is making a fundamental "strategic shift, where they are moving from a focus on their ground forces to focus on their navy, and their maritime forces and their air force".

_________________
ท้องทะเลและมหาสมุทร ไม่เคยปราศจากคลื่นฉันใด
มนุษย์อยู่ร่วมในสังคมเดียวกัน โดยความคิดเห็นที่แตกต่างกัน ย่อมสร้างผลกระทบต่อสังคมได้ฉันนั้น

sunny

จำนวนข้อความ : 3511
Registration date : 28/06/2008

ดูข้อมูลส่วนตัว

ขึ้นไปข้างบน Go down

Re: US vs China

ตั้งหัวข้อ  sunny on Tue Aug 10, 2010 10:24 am


PLA Navy's 052C "Haikou" anti-aircraft destroyer

China is pumping many billions of dollars into new warships and submarines with the aim of denying the US Navy the ability to rule supreme in East Asian waters.

It has also displayed a willingness to scrap with US forces in the region, including the harassment and obstruction of the US naval survey ship impeccable by five Chinese vessels in the South China Sea in March last year.

"China's military ambitions and behaviour, even though focused relatively close at home, indicate nothing less than a bid for geopolitical pre-eminence in East Asia," says maritime security expert Chris Rahman in a recent ASPI report on China's maritime agenda.

"Some have argued that an essentially stable geostrategic balance exists in East Asia, with China dominant on land and the US dominant at sea. "However, that argument misunderstands the challenge that China's seaward expansion poses to the US system of regional security.

Of greatest concern for the US and the West is the development by China of an anti-ship missile with a range of nearly 900 miles (1450km), specifically designed to defeat US carrier strike groups.

_________________
ท้องทะเลและมหาสมุทร ไม่เคยปราศจากคลื่นฉันใด
มนุษย์อยู่ร่วมในสังคมเดียวกัน โดยความคิดเห็นที่แตกต่างกัน ย่อมสร้างผลกระทบต่อสังคมได้ฉันนั้น

sunny

จำนวนข้อความ : 3511
Registration date : 28/06/2008

ดูข้อมูลส่วนตัว

ขึ้นไปข้างบน Go down

Re: US vs China

ตั้งหัวข้อ  sunny on Tue Aug 10, 2010 10:26 am


PLA Navy's new type of destroyer-frigate fleet
Gates has said bluntly China's "investments in anti-ship weapons and ballistic missiles could threaten America's primary way to project power and help allies in the Pacific, particularly our forward bases and strike carrier groups".

China's ambitions in the Pacific are, at present, limited to denying US forces the ability to operate from forward bases such as Okinawa and Guam, as well as sowing doubts in the minds of Americans about the safety of US carrier groups close to the Chinese mainland.

Some believe the US military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan have come at the cost of other defence programs that would have been relevant to the Chinese threat, such as the decision to cancel the F-22 fighter program -- a plane that was considered uniquely capable of penetrating China's increasingly sophisticated air defence systems.

The Obama administration is taking China's naval build-up in the region seriously and has recently moved to shore up its alliances in East Asia.

The US last month announced it would resume relations with Indonesia's controversial special forces, Kopassus, in what The Washington Post described as "the most significant move yet by the United States to strengthen ties in East Asia as a hedge against China's rise."

The Obama administration has also taken recent steps to strengthen its ties with traditional allies such as South Korea and Japan, as well as Malaysia.

Alan Dupont, director of the Centre for International Security Studies at the University of Sydney, says America's overtures have been received well in a region that is also nervously eyeing China's naval expansion.

"In effect, China now faces the prospect of a revitalised and extended US alliance structure in Asia, which includes a second tier of de facto Asian partners, which worries about China's rise as much as the US," Dupont says.

"A problem with this strategy is that the US is not dealing from a position of strength. Suffering from imperial overstretch and unprecedented peacetime fiscal deficits, which threaten to erode US military capabilities and foreign policy clout, this hardly seems the time for Asian states to put their faith in Uncle Sam." (From the Australian)

_________________
ท้องทะเลและมหาสมุทร ไม่เคยปราศจากคลื่นฉันใด
มนุษย์อยู่ร่วมในสังคมเดียวกัน โดยความคิดเห็นที่แตกต่างกัน ย่อมสร้างผลกระทบต่อสังคมได้ฉันนั้น

sunny

จำนวนข้อความ : 3511
Registration date : 28/06/2008

ดูข้อมูลส่วนตัว

ขึ้นไปข้างบน Go down

Re: US vs China

ตั้งหัวข้อ  satan_baby on Tue Aug 10, 2010 11:01 pm

American Dream now a Chinese reality

By Stuart Wiggin

Political commentators, especially within Asia, have been keen to stress the evolving relationship which has become apparent between East and West as the developed world has slumped into recession. Talks between the United States and China were heralded as an attempt by President Barack Obama to pave the way for a more constructive relationship between two powers with big ideological differences.

As part of the commentary which focuses upon the general relationship between the developed and developing world, more often than not a clear delineation is drawn between the way of life pursued by the people in the Eastern hemisphere and that of the developed Western world, while Africa is generally left out altogether.

Although it is necessary to acknowledge differences during any analysis of East and West, the reality is that the most powerful country in the 'new' Eastern/Asian bloc, i.e. China, has inherited many of the characteristics that made America into the power it is today.

The number of similarities between the two societies is astounding. China is not only on the verge of becoming an equal partner within the world balance of power over the next 50 years; it is also set to take America's place as a beacon for prosperity and opportunity.

The United States of America, as we know it today, came to being as a result of the culmination of the 1929 Wall Street Crash and the Second World War. These two events allowed America to emerge as the world’s strongest power and accelerated the decline of former colonial powers Britain, France and Germany.

At this time, Asia was not even part of the equation. Today, however, it is possible to see a very similar situation. This time it is China that remains well afloat within a sea of global recession and Middle Eastern skirmishes. The fact that China holds huge dollar-denominated assets as part of their foreign exchange reserves reaffirms America’s remaining importance within the global financial system, but it is generally accepted by all that China will eventually balance America in terms of both hard and soft power.

The soft power that China cultivates often exists within the developing world and is often seen as a rallying bloc contrasted against the self-seeking interests of developed nations. Building soft power was a priority for America post 1949 as it is for China going into the 21st Century.

China is going through the same stages of formation, albeit at an accelerated pace, that the United States went through from the 1920s onwards. Disregarding the question of history (i.e. that China boasts a 5000 year history which nobody below the age of 50 is willing to study in-depth, and America only possesses around 200 years of modern history, most of which they would rather forget to a large extent), the similarities are quite clear to see.

Not unlike America, China has become home to many people from outside of its borders. Many people have set up a home here in hope of pursuing what is fast becoming the Chinese dream: making their fortune. In Guangzhou, a 10-square-kilometer area centered around Hongqiao, affectionately referred to by locals as Chocolate City, serves as home to a mix of Chinese and foreign dwellers, the majority of which are of African descent.

According to Guangzhou Daily, the total number of Africans in this city alone is thought to be almost 100,000, and is only set to rise further. This influx is, at this moment in time, a novel feature of certain cities for many Chinese people, but so too was the influx of immigrants to America in the 1920s. What is more, it is not only immigrants expecting to find fortune in China.

As Lester R. Brown, President of Earth Policy Institute in Washington has stated, "for China's 1.3 billion people, the American dream is fast becoming the Chinese dream…Millions of Chinese are living like Americans: eating more meat, driving cars, traveling abroad, and otherwise spending their fast-rising incomes much as Americans do." In this sense, China bears a greater resemblance to the America of the 1920s and 30s than modern America does today.

Aside from demographic or financial similarities between China and the United States, one must also acknowledge the general similarity between the psyche of the American and Chinese peoples. Both peoples are generally insular, largely unconcerned with foreign affairs, and their grasp of geography outside of their respective continents is rather poor.

Forays into foreign countries are usually the result of humanitarian efforts or as part of their search for natural resources, glaring examples being China’s involvement in Africa and America’s obvious involvement in Iraq. There is no working class sentiment in China or America, and both countries are fiercely patriotic. Patriotism seems to have filled the void of any class sentimentality and it is for this reason that the hope of one People's Daily writer of restructuring Chinese growth in the context of globalization, as stated in the recent article "Why can't China climb up the value chain?," will always be constrained so long as unions are non-existent and labor remains cheap.

Though the creation of a "Chinese Dream" may seem like an achievement for the country, there is also the idea that the American Dream could become a Chinese nightmare (USA Today, June 2005), with the possibility that consumption could outstrip global output. And even though the above paragraphs detail the likenesses that exist between the two countries, vast differences remain, mostly in political terms.

It is no secret that the two countries have endured a tumultuous relationship, which has most recently been seen when the United States came to China with its tail between its legs regarding a global economic bailout. China, meanwhile, is the arbiter of East Asian stability and is often a thorn in America's side in their pursuit of Western-led initiatives.

Hilary Clinton said that global issues could not be solved by the United States or China alone, but without participation of the two countries, no problems would likely be solved. As it turns out, when they do work together nothing gets done, hence the stalemate with the South Korean Yellow Sea missile, a result of a strategic alliance between China and North Korea.

Nonetheless, disregarding the differences in realpolitik, there is no denying that these two countries, which possess very different brand labels so to speak, have much more in common than media leads us to believe. Just one look at the number of McDonalds and KFC stores in major Chinese cities can tell us this, let alone analyzing consumer spending figures, which unsurprisingly have jumped rapidly while, according to Credit Suisse, the rich have become richer, the poor and the middle classes are still much better off, and Chinese people are saving less as they spend more – notions which one might tend to associate more freely with the leaders of the developed world.

satan_baby

จำนวนข้อความ : 192
Registration date : 08/02/2010

ดูข้อมูลส่วนตัว

ขึ้นไปข้างบน Go down

Re: US vs China

ตั้งหัวข้อ  sunny on Tue Aug 24, 2010 1:02 pm

U.S. Wants Nuclear Force Talks With China

The United States hopes to foster "strategic stability" with China through talks on the two nations' nuclear arsenals and deterrence postures, Kyodo News reported Saturday.

Two-way military talks have been on hold since the beginning of the year after the Obama administration signed off on a $6 billion weapons deal with Taiwan, the autonomous island nation that Beijing claims as its territory.

"We hope that, when [military exchanges] resume, this will be a priority for China, as it is for the U.S., a high-level U.S. Defense Department official told Kyodo.

The 2010 U.S. Nuclear Posture Review declared, "With China, the purpose of a dialogue on strategic stability is to provide a venue and mechanism for each side to communicate its views about the other's strategies, policies and programs on nuclear weapons and other strategic capabilities."

"The goal of such a dialogue is to enhance confidence, improve transparency and reduce mistrust," according to the official nuclear weapons policy document of the Obama administration.

The Pentagon official, however, said it is unknown when the bilateral talks would resume as "the interruption in military-to-military dialogue has gone on longer" than he anticipated.

A recently released Defense Department report on China's evolving military capabilities asserted that Beijing had increased funding for its nuclear weapons, long-range missiles and submarines, among other activities. Beijing has accused the Pentagon of exaggerating its armed forces' capabilities.

"We do not understand the type of nuclear force that will result from the current buildup in China, and we find China's lack of transparency troubling," the U.S. official said.

He drew attention to concerns about China's Dongfeng 31A and Dongfeng 41 ICBMs, along with a recently fielded submarine that could be equipped with extended-range nuclear missiles.

"How many [submarines] will they have? Will they be at sea all the time? Will they operate them the way other navies do, continuous at-sea deployment? Maybe not," the official said.

More difficult to eliminate than silo-based missiles, nuclear-armed submarines provide a second-strike resource in the event of a nuclear conflict. The ability to mount a nuclear attack even after sustaining such a strike is considered essential to the value of a country's strategic deterrent.

"We are not interested in having a Cold War-like relationship with China, but nor do we want a relationship where we're competing in terms of nuclear weapons and missiles for strategic advantage," the Pentagon official said, indicating the Obama administration would not include the premise of mutually assured destruction in its dealings with Beijing (Kyodo News/Breitbart.com, Aug. 21).

_________________
ท้องทะเลและมหาสมุทร ไม่เคยปราศจากคลื่นฉันใด
มนุษย์อยู่ร่วมในสังคมเดียวกัน โดยความคิดเห็นที่แตกต่างกัน ย่อมสร้างผลกระทบต่อสังคมได้ฉันนั้น

sunny

จำนวนข้อความ : 3511
Registration date : 28/06/2008

ดูข้อมูลส่วนตัว

ขึ้นไปข้างบน Go down

Re: US vs China

ตั้งหัวข้อ  sunny on Thu Aug 26, 2010 1:08 pm

Asia and the United States: A changing relationship
Author: Simon Tay, SIIA

Ambassador-At-Large Tommy Koh has written a comment which addresses several points in my book Asia Alone: The Dangerous Post-Crisis Divide from America.


Questions of leadership and engagement in Asia are live issues. New frameworks for cooperation are taking shape, with the US announcing it will join the East Asia Summit as well as host the second US-ASEAN Summit. Australian and Japanese proposals for a new community have been shelved.

The evolving framework will be tested. One such test may come from the renewed disputes over territory, sovereignty and posturing in the South China Sea. The US declaration that the South China Sea is a ‘national interest’ weeks after China called it a ‘core interest’ points to renewed chilling in their bilateral relationship.

I believe that the United States can and should take an active role in Asia. In the wake of the GFC both sides are adapting to new positions. This may mean that old methods of cooperation will become outmoded, and new balances must be found.

What is the position of America post-GFC?

I do not believe America is in absolute or terminal decline, but that it is in relative decline and that others are rising. The GFC has precipitated a movement away from the previous ‘unipolarity’ to a more multipolar world order.

My book calls on the US to respond to the GFC with the kind of resilience and inventiveness that has helped it respond to past crises.

A new context for American-Asian relations is emerging. America now faces a spectrum of strategic choice running from potential isolationism and the idea of American decline to the acceptance of a more multipolar world and a continued engagement on different terms.

Ambassador Koh agrees with me in some respects. He recognises the effort the Obama administration is making to engage Asia. I too credit the current administration for seeing the strategic imperatives and reaching out in a more multilateral way than in the past.

Where Ambassador Koh and I may disagree is in how we assess the ‘state of the patient’ right now. To me, if both Asia and the US don’t do something, the state of affairs will worsen. Economic and business opportunities and synergies will be missed. Asian stability and the US’ reputation will both be compromised. In contrast, Ambassador Koh might be taken to suggest that there is little wrong with the status quo.

America and Asia need to find new ways and a new vision for a shared future. As Ambassador Koh suggests, both sides will gain from engagement but I give more emphasis as to how the status quo is changing and to how new balances must be negotiated. In Asia Alone, I ask both sides to reexamine conventional wisdom.

The capacity and will of the United States to remain engaged in Asia should not be taken as a given. One can have the strongest intention to engage, as Obama indeed appears to have, but still be unable to deliver due to other factors. Take President Obama’s thrice-postponed trip to Indonesia. Each time, a pressing domestic issue trumped the President’s ability to be there, even though he has both sentimental and strategic reasons to visit Indonesia.

My intention is not to prescribe that Asians should welcome the thought of Asia being alone, divided from the United States. Nor do I wish to predict that the GFC will lead to such a division. Rather, I argue that Asia and the United States must begin a new stage of their partnership in which Asia is more united as a region, but still interdependent with a powerful and confident America. If this partnership model is followed, both will prosper.

Simon Tay is chairman of the Singapore Institute of International Affairs and author of Asia Alone: The Dangerous Post-Crisis Divide from America.

_________________
ท้องทะเลและมหาสมุทร ไม่เคยปราศจากคลื่นฉันใด
มนุษย์อยู่ร่วมในสังคมเดียวกัน โดยความคิดเห็นที่แตกต่างกัน ย่อมสร้างผลกระทบต่อสังคมได้ฉันนั้น

sunny

จำนวนข้อความ : 3511
Registration date : 28/06/2008

ดูข้อมูลส่วนตัว

ขึ้นไปข้างบน Go down

Re: US vs China

ตั้งหัวข้อ  sunny on Thu Aug 26, 2010 2:59 pm

US to supply Taiwan radar equipment for air defence system and fighter jets

TAIPEI, Taiwan - The United States said it will supply radar equipment to Taiwan's air force, an approval of a relatively marginal item less likely to anger China than the F-16 fighter jets the island's president urged Washington to provide last week.

U.S. State Department spokesman Philip J. Crowley said Tuesday that the U.S. sale includes "defence services, technical data, and defence articles" for Taiwan's air defence system, and radar equipment for the island's Indigenous Defence Fighter jets.

Crowley did not put a monetary figure on the deal or identify the American companies involved.

The U.S. is obligated by law to provide Taiwan defensive weapons.

Taiwan's Defence Ministry did not comment immediately on the transaction, but the U.S.-Taiwan Business Council, a private advocacy group based in suburban Washington, called it "a small move."

For years the island has been pressing the U.S. to sell it 66 F-16 C/D fighter jets to help counteract a long-standing Chinese military buildup, much of which has been aimed at providing Beijing the wherewithal to invade across the 100-mile- (160-kilometre-) wide Taiwan Strait.

Taiwan and China split amid civil war in 1949 and the mainland still claims the island as part of its territory. It has threatened to attack if democratic Taiwan moves to make its de facto independence permanent.

Beijing objects strongly to any U.S. military sales to the island on the grounds that they constitute interference in its internal affairs. Earlier this year it suspended defence exchanges with Washington after the U.S. announced it would make available to Taiwan a $6.4 billion weapons package.

Some Taiwanese defence officials fear that the threat of additional Chinese pressure has already convinced Washington to take the F-16 C/D sale off the table.

However, they continue to hope that the Obama administration might agree to a substantial upgrade of the F-16 A/B fighters currently in the island's inventory as a kind of consolation prize.

In contrast to F-16s, the Indigenous Defence Fighter at the centre of the new radar deal is widely regarded as a relatively unsophisticated aircraft, incapable of holding its ground against the fourth generation fighters now in the possession of the Chinese air force.

_________________
ท้องทะเลและมหาสมุทร ไม่เคยปราศจากคลื่นฉันใด
มนุษย์อยู่ร่วมในสังคมเดียวกัน โดยความคิดเห็นที่แตกต่างกัน ย่อมสร้างผลกระทบต่อสังคมได้ฉันนั้น

sunny

จำนวนข้อความ : 3511
Registration date : 28/06/2008

ดูข้อมูลส่วนตัว

ขึ้นไปข้างบน Go down

Re: US vs China

ตั้งหัวข้อ  sunny on Fri Aug 27, 2010 2:10 pm

China Warns US Against Selling Taiwan Radars

BEIJING (AP) -- China objected Friday to a U.S. plan to supply radar equipment to Taiwan's air force, even though the sale was far short of the F-16 fighter jets the island's president urged Washington to provide last week.

U.S. State Department spokesman Philip J. Crowley said earlier this week that the U.S. sale includes ''defense services, technical data, and defense articles'' for Taiwan's air defense system, and radar equipment for the island's Indigenous Defense Fighter jets.

Crowley did not put a monetary figure on the deal or identify the American companies involved. The U.S. is obligated by its own laws to provide Taiwan defensive weapons.

Beijing opposes any military sales to Taiwan as interference in its internal affairs, and the issue has often strained U.S.-China relations.

''China resolutely opposes the United States selling weapons and relevant technical assistance to Taiwan,'' Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu said in a statement.

''We urge the United States to ... put an end to arms sales to Taiwan and military ties with Taiwan to avoid causing new harm to Sino-U.S. relations.''

Taiwan's Defense Ministry has not commented on the planned sale, but the U.S.-Taiwan Business Council, a private advocacy group based in suburban Washington, called it ''a small move.''

For years the island has been pressing the U.S. to sell it 66 F-16 C/D fighter jets to help counteract a long-standing Chinese military buildup, much of which has been aimed at providing Beijing the wherewithal to invade across the 100-mile- (160-kilometer-) wide Taiwan Strait.

Taiwan and China split amid civil war in 1949 and the mainland still claims the island as part of its territory. It has threatened to attack if democratic Taiwan moves to make its de facto independence permanent.

Earlier this year it suspended defense exchanges with Washington after the U.S. announced it would make available to Taiwan a $6.4 billion weapons package.

Some Taiwanese defense officials fear that the threat of additional Chinese pressure has already convinced Washington to take the F-16 C/D sale off the table.

However, they continue to hope that the Obama administration might agree to a substantial upgrade of the F-16 A/B fighters currently in the island's inventory as a kind of consolation prize.

Last week after the release of a Pentagon report criticizing the secrecy surrounding China's military expansion, Taiwan President Ma Ying-jeou urged Washington to sell the advanced version of the F16 fighter. Beijing said the report was ''not beneficial.''

In contrast to F-16s, the Indigenous Defense Fighter at the center of the new radar deal is widely regarded as a relatively unsophisticated aircraft, incapable of holding its own against the fourth generation fighters now in the possession of the Chinese air force.

_________________
ท้องทะเลและมหาสมุทร ไม่เคยปราศจากคลื่นฉันใด
มนุษย์อยู่ร่วมในสังคมเดียวกัน โดยความคิดเห็นที่แตกต่างกัน ย่อมสร้างผลกระทบต่อสังคมได้ฉันนั้น

sunny

จำนวนข้อความ : 3511
Registration date : 28/06/2008

ดูข้อมูลส่วนตัว

ขึ้นไปข้างบน Go down

Re: US vs China

ตั้งหัวข้อ  sunny on Wed Sep 01, 2010 5:19 pm

China’s Soft Power v America’s Smart Power

Author: Carlyle A. Thayer, UNSW@ADFA

If China has made the running in Southeast Asia on the basis of soft power over the last decade, the tide now seems to be turning and the United States is re-engaging with smart power. The United States has signed the ASEAN Treaty of Amity and Cooperation; President Obama has attended the first ASEAN-United States leadership summit (and will host the second meeting in the US this year); Secretary Clinton has not only attended two ASEAN Regional Forum meetings in a row, but offered US good offices to help settle diplomatically one of the pressing security issues in Southeast Asia, the South China Sea dispute. In sum, Secretary Clinton has turned the multilateral table on China. The United States is back and engaged in Southeast Asia working with the support of regional states.


Continued Chinese bellicosity and diplomatic pique runs the risk of isolating China diplomatically and eroding the soft power gains of recent years. The timing is bad for China as the regional security architecture looks set to gain a new lease on life and expand into new areas of cooperation. The first ever meeting of the ASEAN defence ministers and their eight dialogue counterparts is set to take place in Hanoi on October 12. Later that month, the East Asia Summit (EAS) will convene with Secretary Clinton attending ‘in an appropriate capacity.’ This will set the stage for the United States to join this 16-member grouping, and for President Obama to attend the 2011 EAS meeting in Jakarta.

The emergence of the EAS will scuttle China’s preference for the exclusivist ASEAN+3 process (China, Japan and South Korea) that omits the United States.

For at least the past three years China has been increasingly assertive in advancing its sovereignty claims in the South China Sea. It succeeded in dividing ASEAN and isolating Vietnam. China has even threatened major American companies, such as ExxonMobile, that if they continue to work with Vietnam to develop its marine resources in the South China Sea their commercial interests in China would be threatened.

The Obama administration has directly confronted China and its bullying. China’s claim that the US orchestrated regional states to attack China verbally is disingenuous. It has been China in the conductor’s seat orchestrating the application of muscular diplomacy to divide ASEAN and undermine the network of US alliances and security ties.

US diplomatic initiatives must be placed in the larger context of US-South Korean naval exercises, the prominent surfacing of three Ohio-class submarines armed with conventional Tomahawk long-range cruise missiles in Subic Bay, Busan and Diego Garcia, and the visit of the nuclear carrier George Washington to waters off central Vietnam to mark the 15th anniversary of diplomatic relations. The view that US primacy is in decline seems premature indeed.

Secretary Clinton’s declaration that the South China Sea is a national interest counters China’s recent assertion that the South China Sea is a core interest.

The South China Sea is a vital artery for global maritime trade including the shipping of oil and LNG. For this reason it is unlikely that China will attempt any action that can be viewed as threatening the safety of navigation and transit through the South China Sea.

Since the Taiwan Straits crisis of 1995-96, China has sought to exert naval power in the first island chain in the western Pacific to keep the US Navy at bay. Thanks to North Korean belligerency, the US Navy has returned to exercise in waters adjacent to China, the fraying US-South Korea alliance has been repaired and the drift between Tokyo and Washington halted.

When developments in Northeast Asia and combined with Southeast Asia China’s bellicosity and diplomatic outrage appear to be a sign of weakness rather than strength.

Carlyle A. Thayer is a professor of politics at the University of New South Wales at the Australian Defence Force Academy in Canberra.

_________________
ท้องทะเลและมหาสมุทร ไม่เคยปราศจากคลื่นฉันใด
มนุษย์อยู่ร่วมในสังคมเดียวกัน โดยความคิดเห็นที่แตกต่างกัน ย่อมสร้างผลกระทบต่อสังคมได้ฉันนั้น

sunny

จำนวนข้อความ : 3511
Registration date : 28/06/2008

ดูข้อมูลส่วนตัว

ขึ้นไปข้างบน Go down

Re: US vs China

ตั้งหัวข้อ  sunny on Mon Sep 13, 2010 5:46 pm

The end of American supremacy

Author: Hugh White, ANU

Asia’s security and Australia’s future depend not just on the choices China might make, but on America’s choices too. Even if China overtakes it economically over the next few decades, the US will remain the second-strongest country in the world for a long time to come, and by far the most serious constraint on Chinese power. The way America chooses to use its power is as important as anything China decides, and America’s choices may be harder than China’s.


A peaceful new order in Asia to accommodate China’s growing power can only be built if America is willing to allow China some political and strategic space. Such concessions do not often happen. History offers few examples of a rising power finding its place in the international order without a war with the dominant power. Conflict is only avoided when the dominant power willingly makes space for the challenger, as Britain made way for America in the late nineteenth century. Will America do the same for China? Should it?

As America confronts these questions, it too faces a choice between influence and order. Like China, it wants as much influence as it can get, with as little disorder as possible, so it has to balance its desire for Asia to remain peaceful against its desire to remain in charge. Washington has not faced this choice before. Since Nixon went to China, US primacy has been synonymous with order, and the more influence America has had, the more stable Asia has been. Now China’s rise means that the region might be more peaceful if America settles for a more modest role. If instead America tries to retain primacy in the face of China’s power, it will provoke a struggle that upsets the region. It would be sacrificing Asia’s peace to preserve its own primacy.

America could easily find itself doing just that. After being in charge for forty years, many Americans cannot imagine that Asia can be peaceful except under American leadership. Conceding even a share of power to another country looks risky, and especially conceding power to China. It is easy to see any desire by China to expand its influence as inherently threatening, and the more repressive and authoritarian China’s government appears, the more threatening it looks. No one can be comfortable about a regime that represses dissent at home exercising more power abroad. But what is the alternative? Forty years ago Washington – and Canberra – decided to accept the Chinese Communist Party as the legitimate government of China. Since then, and partly as a result, China has grown to become a very powerful country indeed. As America continues to deal with China and to benefit from its growth, it faces the consequences of those decisions. Some of those are unpalatable. While continuing to accept the communists as the legitimate government of China internally, many Americans would now prefer to deny that China’s government can legitimately exercise its power internationally.

Unfortunately, Americans do not get to make that kind of choice now. They cannot separate China’s internal government from the exercise of its international power. China’s power, controlled by China’s government, must be dealt with as a simple fact of international politics. If Americans deny China the right to exercise its power internationally within the same limits and norms that they accept for themselves, they can hardly be surprised if China decides not to accept the legitimacy of American power and starts pushing back. These days it can push back pretty hard.

America, therefore, has to decide whether its reasons for trying to prevent China exercising its growing power on the international stage are strong enough to justify the resulting mayhem. That depends on whether China is willing to exercise its power within the rules accepted by the international community as a whole – broadly those set out in the Charter of the United Nations. So far the evidence suggests that it will. The fact that China’s government is repressive at home makes us uneasy, but it does not automatically mean it will behave unacceptably abroad. The mere fact that China wants to expand its influence as its power grows does not show that it intends to break the rules and use that power improperly. In particular, the fact that China’s ambitions might be contrary to American interests does not make them inherently illegitimate – unless you believe, as many Americans do, that acceptable international conduct is defined as the acceptance of American primacy.

Americans find that easy to believe because they have got so used to exercising primacy and they don’t want to give it up. It has become a matter of national identity, which makes it very hard to relinquish. What’s more, they do not yet accept that they will have to fight to keep it. Most Americans, even those who know Asia well, do not really accept that China poses a serious challenge to their power and role in Asia. They remind you that America’s eclipse in Asia has been predicted many times before, and the doomsayers have always been wrong. They say this time will be no different: America will bounce back from its present troubles, stronger than ever.

This is half right. It is true that America’s present problems will pass. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been wasteful and demoralising, but they will not bring America to its knees. America’s economic problems are serious and debilitating, but it remains a remarkably innovative and vibrant place with an immense capacity for recovery and reinvention. If China’s challenge to America depended on American weakness, there would be little to worry about. But the story of Asia’s power shift is not about America. It is about China. This is not a story of American weakness, but of Chinese strength. Even if the War on Terror and the global financial crisis had never happened, even if America’s budget was in healthy surplus and its financial system in perfect shape, China’s economic transformation would still pose the biggest threat to America’s place at the apex of global power since it reached there in 1880.

China’s challenge is different because never before has there been a country with the potential to overtake America economically. Japan could not do it: with only one-third America’s population, Japan’s workers would have needed to be three times as productive as America’s to overtake it, and that was never going to happen. The Soviet Union’s bigger population gave it a better chance, but its economy never approached America’s level of productivity. China is different because its population is much bigger than America’s and its economy works much better than the Soviet Union’s.

Even so, all of us find it hard to imagine that America’s economy could ever be overtaken. It seems a contradiction in terms: an America that was not the world’s richest and most powerful nation would not be America. This is not true – America as number two would still be America – but it will take most Americans some time to accept this, and the process will be a painful one.

Hugh White is professor of Defence and Strategic Studies at the ANU.

_________________
ท้องทะเลและมหาสมุทร ไม่เคยปราศจากคลื่นฉันใด
มนุษย์อยู่ร่วมในสังคมเดียวกัน โดยความคิดเห็นที่แตกต่างกัน ย่อมสร้างผลกระทบต่อสังคมได้ฉันนั้น

sunny

จำนวนข้อความ : 3511
Registration date : 28/06/2008

ดูข้อมูลส่วนตัว

ขึ้นไปข้างบน Go down

Re: US vs China

ตั้งหัวข้อ  sunny on Mon Sep 13, 2010 5:50 pm

China and the challenge to American power?

Author: Peter Drysdale, ANU

There is no question more central to the future of political stability and security in Asia and the Pacific than how the rise of Chinese power is managed alongside the established power of the United States of America. Over the last few years, Hugh White has made an immensely important contribution by forcing us all to think about this question. The central issue for White is whether it is possible to construct an arrangement whereby the new powers in Asia, most prominently China, can engage with the established power, the United States, as the structure of regional power undergoes dramatic change. The answer to this question is vital to the future of regional political stability in the intrinsically unstable process of transition in the balance of regional political power.


In the political sphere, former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd made focus on this issue an international political mission. Yet, at this point in time, neither Washington nor Beijing are exactly comfortable with facing it.

In Washington, and in American political psychology, there is a perhaps justified confidence in continuity. For Beijing, the question has come too soon, when the pre-occupations of domestic development still overwhelm.

In an early contribution on this Forum White argued that changes in the structure of power in Asia and the Pacific require the construction of a new concert of Asian powers and that, however difficult to set up, it has the best prospect of ensuring Asian security. Union, a la Europe is remote; American primacy is unlikely to remain; a balance of power system is unstable. A grouping involving the United States and Asian powers, therefore, provides an alternative. But, he concluded, such a grouping is a long shot.

In this week’s lead essay, from a longer piece in Quarterly Essays, White focuses forensically on America’s choice.

A peaceful new order in Asia to accommodate China’s growing power can only be built if America is willing to allow China some political and strategic space. Such concessions do not often happen. History offers few examples of a rising power finding its place in the international order without a war with the dominant power. Conflict is only avoided when the dominant power willingly makes space for the challenger, as Britain made way for America in the late nineteenth century. Will America do the same for China? Should it?

As America confronts these questions, it too faces a choice between influence and order. Like China, it wants as much influence as it can get, with as little disorder as possible, so it has to balance its desire for Asia to remain peaceful against its desire to remain in charge. Washington has not faced this choice before. Since Nixon went to China, US primacy has been synonymous with order, and the more influence America has had, the more stable Asia has been. Now China’s rise means that the region might be more peaceful if America settles for a more modest role. If instead America tries to retain primacy in the face of China’s power, it will provoke a struggle that upsets the region. It would be sacrificing Asia’s peace to preserve its own primacy.

Whether or not we share his underlying pessimism about the possibility of serious conflict, White’s brutal enunciation of these choices commands respect. If the transition of Asia Pacific power is to be navigated successfully, they are issues that need to be set out clearly. Perhaps White assumes too ready a translation of Chinese economic power in to military power. Perhaps he underestimates the multilateral instincts in the American polity. Perhaps White also misunderstands the constraints on both China and America that might lead them to develop a shared modus operandi over the next few decades. And perhaps he underestimates the nature of dynamics and time that there is in which to make the accommodations that need to be made.

Whatever the case, White does us a great service in forcing us to think carefully about all these issues. And think carefully about them we must continue to do, including prominently on.

_________________
ท้องทะเลและมหาสมุทร ไม่เคยปราศจากคลื่นฉันใด
มนุษย์อยู่ร่วมในสังคมเดียวกัน โดยความคิดเห็นที่แตกต่างกัน ย่อมสร้างผลกระทบต่อสังคมได้ฉันนั้น

sunny

จำนวนข้อความ : 3511
Registration date : 28/06/2008

ดูข้อมูลส่วนตัว

ขึ้นไปข้างบน Go down

Re: US vs China

ตั้งหัวข้อ  sunny on Mon Sep 13, 2010 5:54 pm

United States and China: Will positive relations endure?

Author: Robert Sutter, School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University

Since the early years of the George W. Bush administration, US and Chinese leaders have endeavored to emphasise the positive aspects of the US-China relationship and to deal with their many differences out of the public limelight, mainly through the dozens of largely secret dialogues that characterise recent Sino-American relations. Barack Obama came to office with the unusual distinction of avoiding significant China related issues during his long presidential campaign.


Since taking office, Obama has sought the cooperation of China and other world powers to deal with such key international issues as the global financial crisis, nuclear proliferation, terrorism, and climate change. Despite this cooperation, Congress, the American media and various interest groups have continued to highlight security, economic and political differences that impede forward movement in US-China relations.

Meanwhile, the so-called propaganda apparatus of China, one of the six major governing systems in the Chinese administration, for many years ensured that Chinese media and other commentary followed the mainly positive posture favoured by the Chinese government.

Emerging differences

This discreet Chinese approach changed over the past two years. Chinese officials and media took issue with the United States in 2009 over such questions as US surveillance in the South China Sea; management of the US dollar and of China’s large investments in US government securities; US arms sales to Taiwan and US support for Tibet. This year, Chinese officials in private and public asserted the South China Sea is a core interest and objected strenuously to US exercises with South Korea in reaction to North Korea’s sinking of the South Korean navy vessel Cheonan, which killed 46 South Korean sailors.

In apparent response, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reinforced recent US activism in Southeast Asia with an intervention over the South China Sea at the ASEAN Regional Forum meeting in Hanoi in July. The Chinese Foreign Ministry characterised her speech as ‘an attack’ on China.

Tensions seemed to rise further when China demanded that a US aircraft carrier not take part in exercises with South Korea in the Yellow Sea, and the US aircraft carrier George Washington and other advanced naval vessels soon dropped anchor off Vietnam, in celebration of US relations with the strongest disputant of China’s claims in the South China Sea.

Explanations

Commentators have warned that China has now reached a point of economic, military, and political power in Asia such that it is prepared to confront and challenge many aspects of US policy and practice in the region that it has long disagreed with. These observers view the US leadership position in decline because of economic difficulties and extensive military commitments in the Middle East and South Asia.

Additionally, forces of ‘nationalism’ and behind-the-scenes maneuvers of Chinese leadership ‘factions’ seeking advantage by pushing a more assertive public stance against Washington are compelling Chinese leaders to adopt a tougher public posture toward the US.

These assessments and pronouncements foretell a worrisome situation of greater instability in Asia as rising China confronts and challenges the United States on Taiwan, Tibet, trade issues, access to waters near China, and other sensitive issues.

In contrast, this observer sees clear limits on how far China is prepared to go in pursuing a tougher posture toward the United States in Asia. Consultations with dozens of officials and non-government experts in 15 Asia-Pacific cities in recent months confirm the United States at present continues to exert unsurpassed security and economic influence in Asia, unchallenged by China or any other power or coalition of powers.

The People’s Republic of China has a long way to go in seeking Asian leadership; on account of its legacy as a disruptive force in the region for most of its history; its sometimes erratic efforts to reassure its neighbors; its unwillingness to bear the security and economic costs and risks borne by the United States in its leadership role; and pervasive contingency planning and ‘hedging’ by the independent minded Asian governments who seek closer relations with the United States in order to preserve their independence of action as China rises in prominence.

To challenge the United States also would seem to require the PRC to resort to the tactics used throughout its history when dealing with a key international target, improving its leverage with other actors and isolating the target. But the existing international situation shows China with poor or mediocre relations with European powers, Japan, and India, and with less favorable relations than in the recent past with such key regional actors as Australia, South Korea, and Russia.

Outlook

China is in no position to launch a serious challenge to the United States. Like their US counterparts, Chinese leaders need positive engagement with the United States because they benefit from the engagement. Emphasising differences hurts China as well as the United States, and both Chinese and American leaders remain preoccupied with many other priorities and seek to avoid additional problems that would come with serious tensions in Sino-American relations.

The Chinese administration has now opened the way to more public discussion and debate regarding Chinese differences with the United States. The administration may use the public debate to press for changes in US policy in key areas, suspecting that if the US remains firm China does not risk strong negative countermeasures from a US president still seeking Chinese cooperation on important issues.

Robert Sutter is a Visiting Professor of Asian Studies at the School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University, Washington D.C.

_________________
ท้องทะเลและมหาสมุทร ไม่เคยปราศจากคลื่นฉันใด
มนุษย์อยู่ร่วมในสังคมเดียวกัน โดยความคิดเห็นที่แตกต่างกัน ย่อมสร้างผลกระทบต่อสังคมได้ฉันนั้น

sunny

จำนวนข้อความ : 3511
Registration date : 28/06/2008

ดูข้อมูลส่วนตัว

ขึ้นไปข้างบน Go down

Re: US vs China

ตั้งหัวข้อ  sunny on Thu Sep 16, 2010 10:47 am

US anger mounts over Chinese exchange rate
By Stephen Foley

US lawmakers tore into China for what they said was the country's manipulation of its currency, which they said has been kept artificially low against the dollar to boost its manufacturing sector at the expense of American jobs.

A belligerent hearing of the House of Representatives' Ways and Means Committee yesterday was part of a renewed drive for new laws that could put duties on Chinese imports. Politicians on Capitol Hill signalled they are increasingly frustrated at the White House's refusal officially to declare China a "currency manipulator", a move that would trigger sanctions.

Under pressure, the Obama administration said last night it was referring two new disputes with China to the World Trade Organisation. One case covers barriers to American credit-card companies that want to participate in China's electronic payments market, US Trade Representative Ron Kirk said. The other case challenges duties China imposed on a steel product from the US.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is due to testify on the currency issue before Congress today. Last week, he accused the Chinese of doing "very, very little" to address the level of the renminbi.

Sander Levin, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, said he wants to enlist other countries to pressure China, but he also endorsed the use of duties against Beijing's currency practices. "I believe a multilateral approach would be the most likely to yield the broadest results. Many nations are harmed by mercantilist exchange rate policies, not only the US," he said.

_________________
ท้องทะเลและมหาสมุทร ไม่เคยปราศจากคลื่นฉันใด
มนุษย์อยู่ร่วมในสังคมเดียวกัน โดยความคิดเห็นที่แตกต่างกัน ย่อมสร้างผลกระทบต่อสังคมได้ฉันนั้น

sunny

จำนวนข้อความ : 3511
Registration date : 28/06/2008

ดูข้อมูลส่วนตัว

ขึ้นไปข้างบน Go down

Re: US vs China

ตั้งหัวข้อ  ฅนไท on Sun Sep 19, 2010 10:50 am

Is there bound to be a sea battle between China and US?


Imaginary photo of US aircraft carrier fleet under missile attack

From US Congress to the White House, warnings of threats of China's naval capability are constantly sent out. Some US scholars have recently made a surprising conclusion: there is bound to be a sea battle between China and US in 2015, where USS Gorge Washington aircraft will be hit by China's missiles and sink.

US will lose a sea battle with China in 2015?

A senior researcher from the Washington's "think tank", the Center for New American Security, points out that there is bound to be a tense relationship between the navies of China and US. He thinks China's Navy will make expansion into the "blue sea" in the future in sake of energy security, while US is already accustomed to free global navigation. He thinks South China Sea is worth most concerns. He also warns that US launches "subtle cold war" with China in the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean, and this situation is likely to occur in some period in the 21st century.


Imaginary photo of US aircraft carrier hit by missiles

A US marine Colonel as well as military professor makes a forecast that there will be a sea battle between China and US after a political crisis is out of control in 2015. USS Gorge Washington aircraft carrier, which patrols off China's waters, is hit into two parts by China's missiles and sinks after 20 minutes with a total loss of 4,000 US soldiers. He concludes US marine hegemony would end after this battle.


China's DF-21D ballistic missile

Actually, the west media have recently cast close eyes on China's increasingly strengthened naval capability. According to analysis of US media, China doesn't worry about maintaining its navigation freedom in the open sea, and the modernization of China's navy has gone beyond the most exaggerating estimation.

A Swedish military expert says European powers and US focus on thalassocracy. US still obeys the principle of "destroying enemies in the sea, but not bringing them to the land". Therefore it's not difficult to understand China's Navy could easily touch the nerve of the west when China becomes stronger.

China's Navy becomes the focus of the world.


The first island chain

David Finkelstein, a China expert at the US Center for Naval Analyses states nobody should make such a disastrous hypnosis when asked to comment on the forecast. He thinks the current question should be how to establish trust and how to solve difference. Meanwhile, he also points out if there is no good communication mechanism between China and US, there will be probably unnecessary risks and incidents.

A China expert at the US National War College holds the idea that differences always exist between China and US. However, no clue could lead us to make such a speculation that a war would break up between the two countries.

A Swedish researcher at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute points out there is possibility that a sea conflict will occur between China and US, and possibly in the Yellow Sea and the Sea of Japan, because the situation of the Korean Peninsula is unstable, and US interests are related with Japan, which is always seen as the unsinkable aircraft carrier by US. Meanwhile, he thinks it's not highly possible that a sea battle will break up between China and US.

The researcher explains why China's Navy has become the focus in recent years. As exploration of marine resources continues, marine economic value becomes more and more important. Conflicts on thalassocracy are thus getting more and more sharper. The rising China is just at the sharp time of thalassocracy conflicts. Additionally, China actually expands its thalassocracy to the west of "the first island chain", which poses threats to US.

China has marine genes in history


Zheng He

According to a Chinese expert of international relations, China has marine traits in terms of geography as well as marine genes in terms of history. However, in Chinese history, land troops play a crucial role in every dynasty. Nowadays, China's focus on the sea is still in the period of "the cradle", while US has been the key player for more than one century.

The senior researcher at the Center for New American Security points out that there is a great fleet commander in Chinese history: Zheng He, who sailed to many places throughout South Pacific, Indian Ocean, Taiwan, Persian Gulf and distant Africa in seven epic voyages from 1405 to 1433, some 80 years before Columbus's voyages.

Geographically speaking, the sea, which Mainland China is facing, is blockaded by "the first island chain". Historically speaking, China's ancestors never expected to make expansion to the sea, but only made peaceful trade.

A former Indian senior naval official thinks the biggest difference between the east and the west is that the former regards the land as its foundation while the latter regards the sea as its foundation. Therefore easterners sail to look for friends while westerners sail for expansion.

Capability of China's Navy is overestimated

Military reports from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute show that overall capability of China's Navy is developing fairly rapidly. The development of submarines and in some certain fields ranks the leading position in the world.

According to a Chinese military expert, the capability of China's Navy has been greatly strengthened. However, there is still a big gap between China's Navy and US Navy. Therefore, the capability is overestimated by the west.

The senior researcher at the Center for New American Security thinks the gap between China's Navy and US Navy doesn't only lie in the number of war ships and ship-based aircrafts, but also in naval tradition, international practice, global navigation and capability of communication.

A professor from US Naval War College says the international community should keep on showing its wiliness to cooperate with China's Navy but not exaggerate the threat from the expansion of its navigation space.

ฅนไท

จำนวนข้อความ : 193
Registration date : 04/11/2008

ดูข้อมูลส่วนตัว

ขึ้นไปข้างบน Go down

Re: US vs China

ตั้งหัวข้อ  sunny on Thu Sep 30, 2010 3:13 pm

China Denounces US House China Currency Measure

China says a push by the U.S. lawmakers to force it to revalue its currency will severely affect bilateral ties.

Thursday’s comments by Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jing Yu were in reaction to legislation passed the day before by the U.S. House of Representatives authorizing tariffs on products from countries with an artificially weak currency.

Earlier in the day, Commerce Ministry spokesman Yao Jin issued a statement calling the measure “inconsistent with relevant rules” of the World Trade Organization.

U.S. lawmakers and businesses accuse Beijing of keeping the yuan artificially low, giving Chinese-made goods a price advantage on world markets. They say manipulation of the yuan has cost the United States millions of manufacturing jobs.

The American Chamber of Commerce in China joined Beijing in opposing the bill. The group issued a statement saying the bill would “fail to create significant U.S. job growth,” and may even cost jobs related to U.S. exports.

Hours before Wednesday’s vote, China’s central bank pledged to increase the flexibility of the yuan.

Beijing said last July that it would allow the yuan to trade more freely against some other currencies, but its value has increased just slightly since then.

The U.S. Senate may take up a similar bill in November. If such a measure is approved by the Senate, it would go to President Barack Obama for his signature.

Mr. Obama said Wednesday his administration is “pushing” China on the issue. He said the undervalued yuan has contributed to Washington’s $145 billion trade deficit during the first seven months of this year.

Republican members of Congress, while agreeing the Chinese currency is undervalued, expressed concern that the bill does not cover other issues with China, including intellectual property rights. They also argued the bill is punishing American consumers.

Mr. Obama discussed the currency issue with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly last week.

Mr. Wen said there would be “major turbulence” in China if there were a substantial increase in the yuan. Mr. Wen blamed the huge U.S. trade deficit on the “structure of Sino-U.S. investment and trade,” not the value of China’s currency.

_________________
ท้องทะเลและมหาสมุทร ไม่เคยปราศจากคลื่นฉันใด
มนุษย์อยู่ร่วมในสังคมเดียวกัน โดยความคิดเห็นที่แตกต่างกัน ย่อมสร้างผลกระทบต่อสังคมได้ฉันนั้น

sunny

จำนวนข้อความ : 3511
Registration date : 28/06/2008

ดูข้อมูลส่วนตัว

ขึ้นไปข้างบน Go down

Re: US vs China

ตั้งหัวข้อ  sunny on Thu Sep 30, 2010 3:37 pm

US House Votes to Punish China for Undervaluing Its Currency

The U.S. House of Representatives has approved a measure that would punish China and other countries that undervalue their currencies. The 348-to-79 vote came Wednesday, hours after President Barack Obama expressed concern about the Chinese practice related to its currency.

President Obama spoke about the issue in the U.S. state of Iowa Wednesday. "I will say the reason that I'm pushing China about their currency is because their currency is undervalued," he said.

The president says the undervaluing is a contributing factor to the massive trade imbalance between the United States and China.

U.S. lawmakers and businesses accuse Beijing of keeping the yuan artificially low so Chinese-made goods will have a price advantage on world markets. They say this has led to a loss of millions of manufacturing jobs in the U.S.

The speaker of the House of Representatives, California Democrat Nancy Pelosi, says the U.S.-China trade deficit has dramatically increased since lawmakers took up the issue two decades ago. "Remember I said the trade deficit was $5 billion a year 20 years ago when we were having this debate then? It is now $5 billion a week," she said.

Pelosi said the legislation would strengthen the Obama administration and future U.S. governments in negotiations with the Chinese.

Ohio Democrat Tim Ryan, who sponsored the bill, says the currency manipulation means the Chinese government is artificially subsidizing exports to the United States, translating into low-priced goods from China that hurt the U.S. economy "It may be cheap, because it is being subsidized by their government. But it's putting American workers and American manufacturers out of business," he said.

Republicans, while agreeing the Chinese currency is undervalued, expressed concern that the bill does not cover other issues with China, including intellectual property rights, and say it is punishing American consumers.

"While this legislation addresses an important issue, it will not address many more pressing trade concerns with China, and it will not advance the goal of doubling exports in five years," said Michigan Republican Congressman Dave Camp.

The House bill allows the Commerce Department to authorize tariffs on products from countries with an artificially weak currency.

Hours before the vote, China's central bank pledged to increase the flexibility of the yuan.

China said in July that it would allow the yuan to trade more freely against a basket of other currencies, but its value has increased just slightly since then.

President Obama discussed the issue with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly last week, urging the Chinese leader to do more to ease tensions over the issue.

But Mr. Wen told U.S. and Chinese business leaders before his meeting with Mr. Obama that there would be "major turbulence" in China if there were a substantial increase in the yuan.

He blamed the huge U.S. trade deficit on the structure of Chinese-U.S. investment and trade, not the value of China's currency.

The U.S. Senate may vote on a similar measure in November

===========================================

"ง่ายๆก็คือ ใครไม่เอาข้า คือศัตรู"

_________________
ท้องทะเลและมหาสมุทร ไม่เคยปราศจากคลื่นฉันใด
มนุษย์อยู่ร่วมในสังคมเดียวกัน โดยความคิดเห็นที่แตกต่างกัน ย่อมสร้างผลกระทบต่อสังคมได้ฉันนั้น

sunny

จำนวนข้อความ : 3511
Registration date : 28/06/2008

ดูข้อมูลส่วนตัว

ขึ้นไปข้างบน Go down

Re: US vs China

ตั้งหัวข้อ  sunny on Thu Oct 07, 2010 1:30 am

China Resists EU Pressure on Yuan

China is resisting pressure from European leaders to allow the value of the yuan to rise, warning that a sharp appreciation could create “social unrest” in the populous nation.

Chinese Prime Minster Wen Jiabao on Wednesday told a European Union-China business forum that if China’s economy were to suffer a crisis, it “would not be a good thing” for the world economy.”

European and U.S. leaders, concerned that an undervalued yuan is driving down their exports to China while pushing up imports, have urged China to allow a substantial appreciation of its currency.

The European Union, like the United States, is worried about its growing trade deficit with China. China, for its part, has said the imbalances have more to do with the structure of their economies than with the yuan exchange rate.

Wednesday’s economic talks reflect an uneasiness over global “currency wars” in which major industrial nations weaken their exchange rates to make their exports more attractive.

The meeting is seen as an important precursor to next month’s gathering in Seoul, South Korea, of the Group of 20 wealthy developing nations, tasked with resolving major regulatory issues in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis.

Separately on Wednesday, the European Union and South Korea signed a deal is set to double trade between them.

European and Asian leaders representing more than half of the world’s population and global trade have been in Brussels since Monday, discussing everything from economic relations to climate change.

The European Union is China’s second largest trading partner after the United States, and is China’s biggest export market.

_________________
ท้องทะเลและมหาสมุทร ไม่เคยปราศจากคลื่นฉันใด
มนุษย์อยู่ร่วมในสังคมเดียวกัน โดยความคิดเห็นที่แตกต่างกัน ย่อมสร้างผลกระทบต่อสังคมได้ฉันนั้น

sunny

จำนวนข้อความ : 3511
Registration date : 28/06/2008

ดูข้อมูลส่วนตัว

ขึ้นไปข้างบน Go down

Re: US vs China

ตั้งหัวข้อ  sunny on Sat Oct 09, 2010 1:27 am

"หลิว เสี่ยว ปอ "นักโทษการเมืองจีน ชนะรางวัลโนเบลสันติภาพ ส่อกระทบความสัมพันธ์นอร์เวย์กับมังกร

นายหลิว เสี่ยว ปอ นักโทษการเมืองที่อยู่ระหว่างการรับโทษจำคุกจากทางการจีน ได้รับการประกาศให้เป็นผู้ชนะรางวัลโนเบลสาขาสันติภาพประจำปี 2010 เมื่อวันศุกร์ที่ 8 ตค. ที่ผ่านมา ตามเวลาท้องถิ่น ที่กรุงออสโล ประเทศนอร์เวย์

โดยนายหลิว ได้รับการยกย่องจากคณะกรรมการโนเบล "สำหรับการต่อสู้ด้วยความสันติด้วยระยะเวลาอันยาวนาน ต่อการเรียกร้องสิทธิมนุษชนในประเทศจีน" นายธอร์บเงิร์น ยาร์กแลนด์ ประธานกรรมการตัดสินรางวัลโนเบล กล่าวระหว่างการประกาศรางวัล

"คณะกรรมการโนเบลมีความเชื่อมาอย่างยาวนานว่า มีความสัมพันธ์กันอย่างใกล้ชิดระหว่างสิทธิมนุษยชนและสันติภาพ"

การมอบรางวัลดังกล่าว ถือเป็นการตบหน้าทางรัฐบาลคอมมิวนิสต์จีน ที่สั่งจำคุกนายหลิว วัย 54 ปี เมื่อปีที่แล้ว อันเนื่องมาจากความพยายามของเขา ในการจัดทำ "กฏบัตร 08" ซึ่งถือเป็นคำประกาศเจตนาในการปฏิรูปการเมืองของจีน ซึ่งได้รับการเซ็นรับรองจากนักวิชาการ ผู้รู้ และนักเขียน มากกว่า 300 คน

ก่อนหน้านี้ ทางการจีนได้ออกโรงเตือนคณะกรรมการโนเบลบ่อยครั้ง ถึงประเด็นเกี่ยวกับนายหลิว แต่นายยาร์กแลนด์ ได้กล่าวยืนยันว่า คณะกรรมการโนเบลมีสิทธิที่จะตั้งข้อสงสัยด้านสิทธิมนุษยชน ต่อประเทศมหาอำนาจของโลกเช่นจีน

"ทางการจีนในฐานะประเทศภาคีสนธิสัญญา ได้ฝ่าฝืนข้อตกลงระดับนานาชาติหลายครั้ง รวมถึงข้อตกลงหลายฉบับที่เกี่ยวข้องกับด้านสิทธิทางการเมือง" โดยเขากล่าวเสริมว่า "เรามีหน้าที่ในการพูด เมื่อบุคคลอื่นถูกสั่งห้ามให้พูด"

เขายังกล่าวเพิ่มเติมอีกว่า สถานะใหม่ของจีนในเวทีโลก "ต้องเพิ่มความรับผิดชอบให้มากยิ่งขึ้น" และในทางปฏิบัติ เสรีภาพที่อยู่ในรัฐธรรมนูญของจีนนั้น "ถูกลดทอนให้มีขนาดเล็กลงเมื่อนำไปใช้กับประชาชนของจีนหลายๆคน"

นายหลิวยังถือเป็นบุคคลที่มีบทบาทสำคัญในการเคลื่อนไหวเรียกร้องประชาธิปไตยที่จัตุรัสเทียนอันเหมิน เมื่อปี 1989 นอกจากนั้น เขายังเคยต้องโทษอีกหลายครั้ง โดยในเดือนธันวาคม 2009 เขาถูกทางการจีนกล่าวหาในข้อหาพยายามล้มรัฐบาล และถูกตัดสินลงโทษเป็นเวลา 11 ปี

ผู้สื่อข่าวกล่าวว่า ทางการจีนถือว่านายหลิวอยู่ในฐานะอาชญากร และกล่าวว่าการมอบรางวัลให้แก่เขาในครั้งนี้ อาจเป็นการทำลายความสัมพันธ์ระหว่างจีนและนอร์เวย์ และชาวจีนจำนวนมากจะถือว่านี่คือการโจมตีชนิดหนึ่ง ที่ชาติตะวันตกมุ่งหวังทำลายจีน

โดยเมื่อปี 1989 คณะกรรมการโนเบล ได้มอบรางวัลในสาขาสันติภาพให้กับดาไล ลามะ ผู้นำทางจิตวิญญาณของชาวธิเบต ซึ่งสร้างความไม่พอใจให้กับทางการจีนมาก่อนหน้านี้แล้ว

นอกจากนั้น ทั้งสองประเทศก็อยู่ระหว่างการเจรจาข้อตกลงการค้าสองฝ่าย ซึ่งเป็นข้อตกลงที่รัฐบาลนอร์เวย์ต้องการให้ประสบผลสำเร็จในเร็ววัน

ในปีนี้ คณะกรรมการโนเบล ได้ทำการพิจารณาบุคคล และองค์กรต่างๆรวม 237 รายชื่อ เพื่อเข้ารับรางวัลดังกล่าว โดยผู้ชนะจะได้รับเงินรางวัลจำนวน 10 ล้านโครเนอร์ หรือประมาณ 1.49 ล้านดอลลาร์สหรัฐ

รางวัลโนเบลสาขาสันติภาพมีการมอบเป็นครั้งแรกให้กับนายฌอง อองรี ดูนองต์ และนายเฟรเดริค ปาสซี ผู้ก่อตั้งสภากาชาดสากล ในปี 1901 นับตั้งแต่นั้น มีการมอบรางวัลอีก 90 ครั้ง และอีก 19 ครั้ง ไม่มีการพิจารณามอบรางวัลให้แก่บุคคลใด

_________________
ท้องทะเลและมหาสมุทร ไม่เคยปราศจากคลื่นฉันใด
มนุษย์อยู่ร่วมในสังคมเดียวกัน โดยความคิดเห็นที่แตกต่างกัน ย่อมสร้างผลกระทบต่อสังคมได้ฉันนั้น

sunny

จำนวนข้อความ : 3511
Registration date : 28/06/2008

ดูข้อมูลส่วนตัว

ขึ้นไปข้างบน Go down

Re: US vs China

ตั้งหัวข้อ  นางฟ้า on Sat Oct 09, 2010 2:18 am

sunny พิมพ์ว่า:"หลิว เสี่ยว ปอ "นักโทษการเมืองจีน ชนะรางวัลโนเบลสันติภาพ ส่อกระทบความสัมพันธ์นอร์เวย์กับมังกร

"โอบามา" เรียกร้องให้จีนปล่อยตัว "หลิวเซี่ยวโป" เจ้าของรางวัลโนเบลสันติภาพ

วันนี้ (9 ต.ค.) สำนักข่าวต่างประเทศรายงานจากกรุงวอชิงตัน ประเทศสหรัฐอเมริกา ว่า ประธานาธิบดีบารัค โอบามา แห่งสหรัฐ กล่าวในแถลงการณ์ว่า ยินดีกับการตัดสินใจของคณะกรรมการรางวัลโนเบลที่ประกาศชื่อผู้ได้รับรางวัลโนเบลสาขาสันติภาพประจำปีนี้ได้แก่ นายหลิว เซี่ยวโป วัย 54 ปี นักต่อสู้เพื่อสิทธิมนุษยชนและเรียกร้องประชาธิปไตยในประเทศจีน เมื่อปีที่แล้ว ตนสังเกตว่ายังมีผู้คนอีกมากที่ได้รับรางวัลโนเบลและยอมเสียสละมากกว่าตนเสียอีก ซึ่งในปีนี้ก็มีชื่อของนายหลิว เซี่ยวโป ผู้ยอมเสียสละเสรีภาพของตนเองเพื่อความเชื่อมั่นของเขา

พร้อมกันนี้ผู้นำสหรัฐยังเรียกร้องให้รัฐบาลจีนปล่อยตัว นายหลิว เซี่ยวโป จากการถูกคุมขังในเรือนจำตามคำตัดสินลงโทษจำคุก 11 ปี ในข้อหากระทำการยุยงปลุกปั่นให้เกิดการท้าทายอำนาจรัฐ ขณะเดียวกัน รัฐบาลนอร์เวย์แถลงว่า จีนได้เรียกตัวเอกอัครราชทูตนอร์เวประจำกรุงปักกิ่ง เข้าพบ เพื่อยื่นประท้วงกรณีที่คณะกรรมการรางวัลโนเบล มอบรางวัลโนเบลสันติภาพให้กับนายหลิว เซี่ยวโป ขณะเดียวกัน ที่กรุงออสโล เอกอัครราชทูตจีนประจำกรุงออสโล ก็ได้เข้าพบที่กระทรวงการต่างประเทศนอร์เวย์ เพื่อยื่นประท้วงในกรณีเดียวกันนี้.

นางฟ้า

จำนวนข้อความ : 119
Registration date : 22/04/2010

ดูข้อมูลส่วนตัว

ขึ้นไปข้างบน Go down

Re: US vs China

ตั้งหัวข้อ  sunny on Fri Oct 15, 2010 12:51 pm

Obama faces tough test on US-China relations with currency report due Friday

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama faces a deadline Friday that could test already fragile U.S.-China relations: A decision on whether to accuse Beijing formally of using its currency to gain unfair trade advantages against the United States.

Labeling China a currency manipulator would enrage the Chinese just as Obama's administration looks for their help on major global initiatives. Failing to do so, or postponing a decision, could damage Obama's struggling Democratic Party ahead of crucial congressional elections on Nov. 2.

Obama is under pressure to punish China for trade policies that U.S. lawmakers say cost millions of U.S. manufacturing jobs. Many are angry over a politically sensitive U.S. trade deficit with China that has climbed to an all-time monthly high. Friday's deadline is part of a congressional requirement for the Treasury Department to prepare a twice-a-year report whether any countries are manipulating their currencies.

The U.S. deficit with China rose 8.2 per cent in August to an all-time high of $28 billion, surpassing the record $27.9 billion set in October 2008. So far this year, the U.S. deficit with China, the largest imbalance with any country, is running 20.6 per cent above the 2009 pace.

American manufacturers contend that an undervalued currency gives China a trade boost by making Chinese goods cheaper in the United States and U.S. products more expensive in China.

The administration, worried about high unemployment and losing ground to opposition Republicans in the elections, wants to look tough on China. That is especially true after ministers from around the world left last week's global finance meetings in Washington without resolving how to deal with differences over currency.

At the same time, U.S. officials see Chinese co-operation as essential to American efforts to deal with Iranian and North Korean nuclear standoffs, climate change and other difficult issues.

U.S. lawmakers, soon to face frustrated and anxious voters, appear to have tired of White House attempts to strike a delicate balance with China. The U.S. House of Representatives sent the administration and China a strong message last month by passing tough legislation that would impose economic sanctions on countries found to be manipulating their currencies.

If the United States should designate China as a currency manipulator, it would trigger negotiations between the two countries and could result in U.S. economic sanctions against Beijing.

While Friday's deadline puts the Obama administration in a diplomatic and political bind, U.S. officials have options other than an outright declaration that China manipulates its currency.

The Treasury Department could postpone the report, which Obama, following the lead of his predecessor, George W. Bush, has done before. It could also use strong words to criticize China without making a formal declaration of currency manipulation.

Gary Hufbauer, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, predicted that the report "will come right to the edge of calling China a manipulator, basically saying that unless China allows market forces to work and currency to be more responsive, it will be a manipulator."

The administration, Hufbauer said, worries that if it directly slams China on currency, and Beijing still does not act, it will lead to a standoff, with co-operation frozen as both sides refuse to compromise.

U.S.-China ties have hit a low point recently, with the countries clashing over territorial disputes in the South and East China seas, human rights and longtime sore points Taiwan and Tibet.

Ahead of last week's finance meetings, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner ratcheted up pressure on China to make more progress in moving toward flexible exchange rates.

China has allowed its currency to rise in value by about 2.3 per cent since announcing in June that it would introduce a more flexible exchange rate. Chinese officials say their gradual effort to revalue their currency is the best approach to take. Allowing the currency to rise too rapidly, they say, would cost thousands of manufacturing jobs and destabilize the Chinese economy.

_________________
ท้องทะเลและมหาสมุทร ไม่เคยปราศจากคลื่นฉันใด
มนุษย์อยู่ร่วมในสังคมเดียวกัน โดยความคิดเห็นที่แตกต่างกัน ย่อมสร้างผลกระทบต่อสังคมได้ฉันนั้น

sunny

จำนวนข้อความ : 3511
Registration date : 28/06/2008

ดูข้อมูลส่วนตัว

ขึ้นไปข้างบน Go down

Re: US vs China

ตั้งหัวข้อ  hacksecrets on Tue Nov 23, 2010 12:37 am

Burma's Suu Kyi Signals Support For US Engagement

Burmese pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi says U.S. engagement with Burma is a good thing but says the United States needs to be practical about it.

In an interview with CNN television aired Friday, Aung San Suu Kyi said she is not opposed to the United States engaging in diplomacy with Burma's military government. However, she said U.S. officials should not go into talks too optimistic.

Aung San Suu Kyi was released from house arrest one week ago, after spending 15 of the last 21 years under some kind of detention. Since her release, the Nobel Peace Prize winner has called for reconciliation talks with Burma's junta leader, Than Shwe.

Also Friday, the U.S. State Department said U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sent a personal letter to Aung San Suu Kyi. A spokesman would not discuss its contents.

State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said the United States places a special responsibility on Burma's government to guarantee Aung San Suu Kyi's safety. He said now that Aung San Suu Kyi has been released, she should be able to reconstitute her party as she sees fit.

Aung San Suu Kyi's release came days after political parties backed by the military swept Burma's first elections in two decades.

Western leaders and human rights activists said the vote was neither fair nor free and an effort by Burma's military to put a civilian face on its continued rule.

The election results show that the military's political party, the Union Solidarity and Development Party, won a large majority of the districts.

_________________
ความระแวง และสงสัย ก่อให้เกิดการค้นคว้าหาความเป็นจริง

hacksecrets

จำนวนข้อความ : 765
Registration date : 28/06/2008

ดูข้อมูลส่วนตัว

ขึ้นไปข้างบน Go down

Re: US vs China

ตั้งหัวข้อ  hacksecrets on Tue Nov 23, 2010 12:41 am

China Displaces Russia in Central Asia


The vendor is Chinese, the products are Chinese, but the market is here in Almaty, capital of Kazakhstan, the most prosperous of Central Asia's five "stans," or former Soviet Republics

In Baraholka, the city's largest bazaar, vendors offer blue jeans, humidifiers, mobile phone chargers, and fresh apples - all from China. The trading language is still largely Russian, a legacy of the old colonial power. But as Alira, a vendor here, says, the products are not.

"Russian products? We have no Russian products," Alira says adamantly.

China is doing more than selling pots and pans to Central Asia's 62 million people. A thirst for energy is behind China's massive oil and gas investments in Central Asia, long the privileged sphere of Russia.

Chinese demand for energy edges U.S.

The International Energy Agency reports China is displacing the United States this year as the world's-largest energy consumer. Over the next 25 years, China's energy consumption is expected to double.

But the bulk of China's imported oil and gas passes through vulnerable sea lanes. Hongyi Lai, a professor at the University of Nottingham, studies China's global search for energy.

"The importance of Central Asia for China is in terms of energy security," says Lai. "It provides transport of oil and gas overland, not through sea lanes. So in this form, it is more secure for China."

Central Asia has some of the world's largest reserves of oil and gas. Once a dusty stretch of the Silk Road for camel caravans taking Chinese products to Europe, Central Asia is now a destination for Chinese investment - about $25 billion at last count.

New infrastructure

Last year saw the openings of the first pipelines carrying Central Asian oil and gas east to China. Now Turkmen gas heats apartment buildings in Beijing.

Almost overnight, Turkmenistan, which holds the fourth-largest gas reserves in the world, is selling more gas to China than to Russia. Kazakhstan, which plans to be among the world's top 10 oil producers, now sells one quarter of its oil to China.

In addition to paying for pipeline expansions, China is paying for a 3,000-kilometer highway across Kazakhstan that is to be part of a new, asphalt Silk Road, allowing trucks to drive from China to Western Europe.

Fading Russian legacy

American author Parag Khanna, says in his new book, "How to Run the World," that these new pipelines, highways and railroads radiate out of China into Central Asia, "like five fingers on a hand." This puts Russia on the defensive in Central Asia, long its privileged sphere of influence.

"Russia, if it wants to remain relevant, is going to have to be putting its money where its mouth is, and buying into these kinds of deals as well," Khanna points out. "It has a very strong legacy position in electricity and energy and other sorts of sectors in the former Soviet Republics in Central Asia, but it needs to defend that turf more actively, particularly given the generational change, linguistic change, western orientation, as well as eastern orientation, among the next generation of leadership in all of those countries. It really cannot take anything for granted," he says.

With daily flights between Almaty and Urumqui, China's nearest regional capital, a generation of Central Asians is growing up with no memories of the Soviet-Chinese confrontation that kept the border frozen shut for most of the 20th century.

Kazakh political scientist Dosym Satpayev watches the surge of young Kazkakhs studying Chinese and winning scholarships to study in China.

"A lot of young people receive education in China and when they will return to our countries, maybe China will use these people as [a] lobby to realize their own interests, not only in economic sphere, but in culture sphere, in informational sphere," Satpayev says. "As for Russia, I believe this country will decrease position in our region because Russia is not a very strong competitor.''

Kazakhs now say, in Russian: 'If you want to leave, study English. If you want to stay, study Chinese."

Some unease with new order

But a backlash may be brewing. Kazakh authorities dropped a plan to rent one-million hectares of unused farmland to Chinese farmers.

Aidos Sarym, who runs an opposition research organization in Almaty, says many Kazakhs are uneasy about the Chinese giant. Kazakhs worry about their eastern neighbor with a population 100 times that of Kazakhstan, says Sarym.

But China's rapid economic thrust may now be irreversible. An American-trained Kazakh businessman, Baurzhon Doszhanov, looks around Baraholka bazaar as he shops for a Chinese-made camping lantern.

"If we remove Chinese stuff, we will be naked, " says Doszhanov.

_________________
ความระแวง และสงสัย ก่อให้เกิดการค้นคว้าหาความเป็นจริง

hacksecrets

จำนวนข้อความ : 765
Registration date : 28/06/2008

ดูข้อมูลส่วนตัว

ขึ้นไปข้างบน Go down

Re: US vs China

ตั้งหัวข้อ  แฟนคลับ on Tue Nov 23, 2010 10:19 am

จีนไฟเขียวเริ่มเทรดเงิน"หยวน"กับรูเบิลรัสเซีย

จีนไฟเขียวเทรดหยวนกับรูเบิลรัสเซียวานนี้(22พ.ย.)เป็นวันแรกในตลาดอินเตอร์แบงก์ ตามนโยบายของทางการที่ต้องการส่งเสริมการใช้เงินหยวนในตลาดการค้าและการเงินโลก

สำนักข่าวบลูมเบิร์กรายงานว่า ความเคลื่อนไหวครั้งนี้จะช่วยอำนวยความสะดวกของการค้าทวิภาคีระหว่างจีนและรัสเซีย พร้อมช่วยพัฒนาการชำระหนี้การค้าในรูปสกุลเงินหยวนด้วย ทั้งนี้ธนาคารกลางจีนคำนวณอัตราอ้างอิงประจำวัน โดยใช้อัตราเฉลี่ยจากธนาคารพาณิชย์ต่างๆ และจะประกาศในเวลาประมาณ 9.15 น.ของทุกวัน สำหรับวันนี้ อัตราอ้างอิงอยู่ที่ 4.6711 รูเบิลต่อหยวน พร้อมกรอบการเคลื่อนไหว 5%

จ้าว ชิงหมิง นักวิเคราะห์อาวุโสของไชน่า คอนสตรักชั่น แบงก์ ในปักกิ่ง แสดงความคิดเห็นว่า หยวนก้าวขึ้นเป็นสกุลเงินระดับนานาชาติมากขึ้น การเทรดโดยตรงระหว่างเงินหยวนและรูเบิลจะช่วยขยายการชำระหนี้ทางการค้าของทั้งสองสกุลเงิน

ปัจจุบัน จีนกำลังอนุญาตให้มีการใช้เงินหยวนในการซื้อขายข้ามแดนมากขึ้น เพื่อลดการพึ่งพาดอลลาร์สหรัฐ หลังจากประธานาธิบดีเวิน เจียเป่า กล่าวเมื่อเดือนมีนาคมว่า เขากำลังวิตกเกี่ยวกับการถือสินทรัพย์ที่กำหนดค่าเป็นดอลลาร์สหรัฐ ทั้งนี้ การซื้อเงินดอลลาร์สหรัฐเพื่อจำกัดการแข็งค่าขึ้นของเงินหยวนทำให้ทุนสำรองเงินตราระหว่างประเทศของจีนในไตรมาส 3 เพิ่มขึ้น 1.94 ล้านดอลลาร์ ส่งผลให้ยอดรวมสูงถึง 2.65 ล้านล้านดอลลาร์

ก่อนหน้านี้ เมื่อวันที่ 19 ส.ค. จีนเริ่มอนุญาตให้เทรดเงินริงกิตมาเลเซียกับเงินหยวนได้ นอกจากนี้เทรดเดอร์ยังสามารถซื้อและขายเงินหยวนเทียบกับดอลลาร์สหรัฐ ยูโร เยน ดอลลาร์ฮ่องกง และปอนด์

ปัจจุบัน เมื่อเทียบกับดอลลาร์สหรัฐ ค่าหยวนเปลี่ยนแปลงเล็กน้อยมาอยู่ที่ 6.6375 หยวนต่อดอลลาร์ จากระดับ 6.6395 หยวนต่อดอลลาร์เมื่อวันที่ 19 พ.ย.

แฟนคลับ

จำนวนข้อความ : 96
Registration date : 10/05/2010

ดูข้อมูลส่วนตัว

ขึ้นไปข้างบน Go down

อ่านหัวข้อก่อนหน้า อ่านหัวข้อถัดไป ขึ้นไปข้างบน


 
Permissions in this forum:
คุณไม่สามารถพิมพ์ตอบ