US China expert Kenneth Lieberthal criticises Japan

Kenneth Lieberthal is talking in riddles. Some say he is quoted out of context by the Chinese media. Others thought that he was speaking with a conscience. Or was this a Freudian slip? 

China's economic and military leverage has certainly strengthened in recent years. 

Unlike most who sided with Japan recently, Lieberthal ought to know the history well. Japan's acquisition of the islands was a gift on the silver platter from American troops at a time when China was weak and rebuilding the country, unable to resist losing its territories to aggressors. 

Japan and its supporters cannot change the facts that the islands were under Chinese jurisdiction during the Ming dynasty with documented evidence and the recognition accorded by the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Declaration.   

If Japan indeed believes that it has a strong case, it would not need to posture, nationalise or buy up the Diaoyutai islands. Whether by historical or territorial boundaries, Japan lacks ammunition to stake claims, except with its loud complaining voice and encouragement of its military ally. It is orchestrated with the Philippines and Vietnam to exert pressure on China when it's vulnerable during leadership change.

Japan broke consensus with China on Diaoyu Islands

Updated: 2012-09-21  

WASHINGTON - The Japanese government's bid to "nationalize" the Diaoyu Islands hadbroken its consensus with China to shelve the territorial dispute, a US expert said Thursday. 

"First of all, I think that Japan's actions have been key in explaining what China has done," saidKenneth Lieberthal, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who had been the seniordirector for Asia at the National Security Council in the Clinton administration.

Speaking at a symposium at the Washington-based think tank, he also admitted it was a "hugemistake" when US government officials made comments that suggested Washington did have aposition on the dispute. 

"I think that does us no good. And occasionally, some comments like that have come out,"Lieberthal said. "I think that they are regrettable."

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2012-09/21/content_15774792.htm

http://www.bloomberg.com/video/63260542-brookings-s-lieberthal-interview-on-china-s-diplomacy.html

Nevertheless, China should not, has not and would not throw away what its hard won respect and gains built up over the years through diplomacy.  As we write, both countries are holding consultations. Clearly escalation would neither benefit China nor Japan. 

The onus is really on Japan to resolve the crisis fairly. This is unlikely with a right-wing domination of the Japanese government bent on militarising bilateral issues at the expense of economic benefits and regional stability. However, China unlike the US does not partake in regime change around the world. 

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2012-09/25/c_131872241.htm

China keeps fingers cross for a stable nuclear North Korea

What other option does China have but to wish its neighbour well. Good luck to another Kim reign?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/19/kim-jong-il-successor-endorsed-china?newsfeed=true

China unlike US and NATO loathes at military intervention in other countries.

It is not in China's tradition and style to arm twist and force medicine down its friends' throat what it does not want to do. Behind the scenes, China has kept North Korea in line and averted potential conflicts when US/ NATO forced it to the brink.

Armed forces (military and police) are meant for defending its territorial integrity and maintaining domestic stability when forced by circumstances, just like the pre-world war USA until Truman came along and that was when exceptionalism by spreading democracy through military means began.

As the Chinese saying goes, wealth and power will not last beyond the third generation.

Perhaps the Chinese are hoping for a quiet evolution instead of volatile revolution next door.

Encircle China foreign policy? Hilary Clinton capitalises on opening Burma, a likely scenario of balancing act

US has seized on the opportunity of perceived loosening grip by the Burma's repressive regime to satisfy its pent up urge to engage the closed nation it has politically ostracised for too long.

http://www.globalpost.com/photo/5682866/burma-myanmar-clinton-military-hunta-economy-china-us-28-20111129

Aung San Suu Kyi who has been a darling of the West is treading carefully. She seem to have come around to accepting that stable transition to democracy must incorporate elements of the current military junta, the bureaucracy, intellectuals and diaspora. No one should be sidelined or left out in a "regime change" or else all hell breaks loose.

An "independent" Myanmar (Burma) does not logically lead to alienation of China from its foreign relations equation. A more balanced policy will reassure future Burmese government that it could play one party against another to extract the most economic benefits without jeopardising its security and national interests.

Some commentators speculate that China is fearful that Burma is looking West.  The US has denied this : engagement is not about China.  The unease is understandable. Not surprisingly, the US has been meddling in regional affairs by making inroads to Third World countries whenever the opportunity beckons.
A stable and neutral Burma will be beneficial not only to China but the rest of Southeast Asia.

Quote :

Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping welcomed Hlaing to Beijing with a reminder that the two countries’ friendship had “endured the test of time through sudden international changes.”

Burma appears in the midst of such a change now, as the new nominally civilian government that took over the reins from the military last March releases political prisoners, reaches out to ethnic minorities to end years of violence, and tests a political opening in talks with opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi.

China has been a lifeline for Burma, ruled by military dictatorships since 1962 and especially isolated since most nations slapped sanctions on the government after it cracked down brutally on a pro-democracy uprising in 1988.

Now “we want to have a regular relationship” with the United States, the powerful speaker of the Burmese parliament and former member of the military junta Shwe Mann told reporters on Friday.

The government’s foreign policy would be based on “peaceful coexistence with all nations,” Mr. Mann said, insisting that “there is no reason to have worse relations between Myanmar and China when Myanmar and US relations get better.” Myanmar is the government’s official name for Burma.

Such a policy would mark a return to Burma’s traditional neutrality, an understandable approach given the country’s sensitive geographical location, squeezed between Asia’s two giants, India and China, and flanked by Thailand, a strong US ally.

Since international sanctions isolated the country, Burmese governments have had little option but to depend on China for trade, weaponry, and diplomatic support in the United Nations. Chinese businesses, private and state owned, have poured $12.3 billion into Burma, and hundreds of thousands of Chinese have settled in Burma.

There had been signs even before the military stood down that nationalist generals were unhappy with this state of affairs. Now the new government, dominated by former senior military men who have swapped their uniforms for suits, has stepped away from China in symbolic ways.

Most notable was the decision last September to suspend a $3.6 billion Chinese dam construction project in northern Burma that had sparked considerable local opposition. Of the hydropower due to be generated by the Myitsone dam, 90 percent was to be sent to China.

Though the new Burmese authorities appear keen to re-orient the country’s foreign policy, few observers expect them to cast off ties with their powerful and influential leader. Rather, they will walk a tightrope between Washington and Beijing.

“It would be insane to think that Burma needs to choose one over the other,” prominent Burmese historian Thant Myint-U recently told The Irawaddy, an independent online newspaper published by Burmese exiles. “Burma is the last country that can afford to have bad relations with either the US or China.” 

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2011/1129/What-will-happen-to-China-as-Burma-Myanmar-gets-closer-with-Vietnam-US

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/myanmar-engagement-not-china-u-says-071758521.html

Washington may be handicapped by its detachment and hence lack of understanding of Burma's motivations. Foremost, Burma's suspicions of foreigners in view of its long policy of isolation following independence from British colonial rule which has raked much of its natural resources. It also has a poor track record of calculated relationship and unreliability, not hesitating to cut and run when things do not turn out as well as they had hoped for. For US to replace China as Burma's main sponsor and trade partner would take more than just smiles and handshakes from Hilary Clinton.