Links of Interest 03/03/2011

Sunset on the South China Sea off Mui Ne villa...

Image via Wikipedia

  • Asia: A sea of troubles | The EconomistMore on the South China Sea from The Economist (from December 2010; still worth a read if you missed it).

    tags: FC south_china_sea china US

    • Chinese naval influence is extending not just deeper, but farther from China’s shores. In 2010 Sri Lanka opened a Chinese-built port in the south, at Hambantota. Work proceeded on the port at Gwadar in Pakistan. And Chinese warships paid their first call on Myanmar. All of this fuelled Indian suspicions of a “string of pearls” strategy designed to choke its own maritime breathing-space. It is as part of this broader extension of influence that the South China Sea will be a focus of concern.

      Time to prepare for a rainy day

      That concern will be heightened by two particular aspects of China’s military modernisation. One is an unannounced aircraft-carrier programme. The other, of more immediate relevance in 2011, is China’s development of the world’s first anti-ship ballistic missile, which the Chinese and some foreign newspapers have touted as a “game-changing” carrier-buster.

  • The South China Sea: A sea of disputes | The EconomistWhy the South China Sea is such a thorny issue – nice overview.

    tags: FC south_china_sea china

tags: FC Taiwan China US

  • International Relations theorist Charles Glaser has joined a growing chorus calling for the abandonment of Taiwan. His take on why we should abandon the island is tucked into his “nuanced version of realism” argued on the pages of Foreign Affairs. As do most “abandon Taiwan” arguments, he begins with a “realist” argument for why war between the United States and China is unlikely. Why? Because besides Taiwan, Sino-U.S. interests are compatible.

Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

2 Responses to “Links of Interest 03/03/2011”

  1. Nathan Novak Says:

    Too bad he’s not a “realist” but instead a Nixonian-Kissingerian realpoliticker who has only a one-way view of “realism,” that being spiral theory (and all its positive as well as negative aspects). Why can’t realpolitickers and contemporary critics of “realism” ever understand that there are several strains of realism, not just realpolitick in the Nixon-Kissinger fashion, and many of them also advocate, some of them rather strongly, deterrence? I’ll never understand. Well, maybe I will. It’s because deterrence often works, and when it works, it’s almost impossible to attack realist arguments. Instead, labeling a part as a whole–realpolitickers = realists (serious mistake)–is the only way other schools of international relations theory can attack realists. It makes me want to show those other schools another aspect of realism which is quite useful rather often: the use of force. ;oD

  2. Nathan Novak Says:

    Oh, and by him, I mean Glaser, although his critic Blumenthal also mislabels Glaser. Yes, Glaser fits one small strain of realism, but he is not the posterboy for realism. What the hell ever happened to realists with a backbone–Kennan, for example?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: