It looks like nations in Asia will not form a coalition against China because they do not share the same overt protest and overt fears of Chinese rise as the Americans 8,000 miles away.

By 2020, China will be the largest trading partner of every nation in Asia.

Containment will not work against China, because every nation including Japan wants good ties with China because their domestic economic growth depends on China's meteoric rise amid a severe economic recession.

China's neighbors is at best trying to use America's insecurity regarding her decline as a means to balance and hedge against China's potential military adventurism.

The bottom line is that Asian nations do not know what a Superpower China will do? Will it be another imperialistic power (like the US wants her to be, at least perceive her to be, to justify US involvement in Asian affairs) etc....

Active containment strategy is out of the question and will not work against China.

"core interest in these area" means PRC`s Monroe Doctrine .
and general MacArthurs can eventually rest in peace!

I'm sorry, but there really isn't any response possible to your comment since you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. It is the Asian countries who are looking to the US for support, not the other way around. Try to get a little educated about a subject before posting next time, please.

Though China likes to gloat over the decline of America, and American politicians seem to be trying hard to sink the economy ... the long term trends tell a different story. By 2050, China and most of Asia will be aging countries, the US will still be young due to much higher fertility (3x China) and due to continuing immigration. The working age population in the US will have increased by 42% by then and still growing. In China, the workforce will decrease 10% by then and be in rapid decline.

Moreover, China seems to be trying hard to make enemies of it's neighbors, particularly India which will have quite a bit higher population than China by then. In the same time, America will maintain it's close allies and become closer and closer to new ones such as India. Though in relative terms, America's military advantage will decline, it will still be quite far ahead at that time. Also, China is a racial power. Intelligent Indians, French, Japanese, Israelis cannot become Chinese and do not move there. They and intelligent Chinese will continue to be attracted to the US by the mix of all people there.

Just keep a little humble since the "decline" of America ... may not happen as planned.

Sorry to be insulting but you don't seem to know a thing about economics, politics, or the military.

1.) China's industry, which subcontracts manufactred goods for the first world, is hardly a competitor for the US, let alone 'hands down' stongers. In fact, I have no idea how you come to that conclusion, except by reading too many uninformed media pieces.

2.) Japan hasn't backed down over the the Chinese provocation - they made their point, as did the US in supporting them. Yes, they took some flak for not letting the thing escalate into a real confrontation, but that would have been stupit, and it actually works, in the long run, to the advantage of the Japanese.

3.) While China has long-run ambitions, they are in no position to take on the US militarily, and probably never will be. Particularly, given that China has effectively no allies or real friends, whereas the US has Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia, Australia, New Zealand, and now Vietnam just in the South West Pacific area alone, China has managed to encircle itself much more effectively than Germany did prior to WWI.

It is China that is living with a 'Cold War Mentality', and they are their own worst enemies.

Apologies for the multiple typos above - typing too fast today, I'm afraid.

Actually the right question to ask is:

Will USA want to sacrifice 2 battle aircraft carriers fleet when Japan and China are fighting for their disputed territories?

If USA cannot stand loosing 4000 soldiers in Afghanistan, then why loose 20,000 people over other people's dispute.

1) If Korea, Taiwan, and Japan can become ultramodern, highly innovative, and technology advanced nations, I am pretty sure China can too. China is following in the model of the East Asian Developmental State (ie. Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, etc....) Can you imagine a China that is industrialized, developed, and as modern as Japan and even Korea? China would equal two (2) European Unions in population, market size, GDP, and geopolitical power and influence.
Americans think China is going to be perpetually manufacturing juggernaut for life. Given the meteoric rise of Japan, Korea, and Taiwan as advanced technological centers of high innovation, I'm pretty sure China is heading that direction too.

2) Chinese provocation? As a veteran watcher of the Diaoyutai-Senkaku dispute for the last 12 years, it was CLEARLY Japan that escalate the issue by persecuting Chinese fishermen under Japanese law.

Japan see's America's declining influence in the long term in Asian security sphere, over-extension in Middle East conflict, and a rising China threat as a security threat to Japan's national sovereignty. As a means to justify re-militarization in the future (I'm guessing Japan views US as unreliable in defense against China in the future), Japan escalated the Senkaku-disputes as a means to portray China as a boogeyman, and to soldify US committment to US-Japan security pact and to justify increase military expenditure.

China uses Japan as an easy punching bag for WW2 invasions and as a proxy for showing South East Asian nations what will happen if they continue to court US as a hedge against China's rise.

China's strategy I believe is pretty elegant, and in the long term, a show of force that US interference in China's regional disputes should not be tolerated, and any hedge or containment strategy against China will be met with economic force.

Honestly, as a veteran watcher of South China sea disputes and China-Japan islet disputes, the US is trying to create fear from China's rise, which solidifies American presence and creates a coalition of the willing to hedge China's rise.

America is scared, very scared of China's rise and losing her place as #1 in Asia.

I can see China leapfrogging US in the field of energy security alone.

US can continue to chug alone her 100 year old oil-oriented infrastructure while China's dictatorship forces her nation to convert to renewable energy sources.

Can you imagine the pain, costs, and burden of reverting America's oil dependent infrastructure when proven oil reserves runs out in 80 years??

China as a developing nation with an authoritarian regime that can mobolize and execute massive investment projects is basically starting from scratch.

This alone will ensure China has a competitive edge over US.

Veteran "China Watcher"? Are you kidding? Have you ever even been to China? Don't you realize the difficulty China is already having simply trying to grow its GDP from the current $4,000 per capita level? A per capita GDP of $30,000 or so is manifestly impossible for China. Also, to become a 'modern' state like ROK, Japan, or Singapore, you need something resembling the rule of law, which China simply will never have under its current government.

Also, if you don't think the the US would intervene to stop an invasion of Japan, Korea, Taiwan, etc., you are simply a fool who knows nothing about history or the region. It is ensure that the US would intervene in the case of a Chinese move that all the other nations of Asia insist on the US presence.

The risk is not China strengthening, but China's increasingly obvious political, economic, and cultural weaknesses and the government's increasingly frantic attempts to stoke nationalism when things go bad.

We have nothing to fear from the PRC/CCP except unwaivering authoritarianism and dictatorship

I provide the following comparative analysis in respect to the United States and the PRCC/CCP, presented to CNN by Dr. Joseph Nye of Harvard, who created the term "soft power."

(Joseph S. Nye is University Distinguished Service Professor at Harvard University, and author of the "The Future of Power," which PublicAffairs press will publish in February. In 1993 and 1994 he was chairman of the National Intelligence Council, which coordinates intelligence estimates for the president. In 1994 and 1995, he served as assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs.)

Cambridge, Massachusetts (CNN) -- A century ago, the rise of Germany and the fear it created in Britain led to world war. Some analysts predict a similar fate from the rise of China and the fear that is creating in the United States.

One should be skeptical about such dire projections. By 1900, Germany had surpassed Britain in industrial power, and Kaiser Wilhelm II was pursuing an adventurous, globally oriented foreign policy that was bound to bring about a clash with other great powers.

In contrast, China still lags far behind the United States economically and militarily, and has focused its policies primarily on its region and on its economic development. While its "market Leninist" economic model (the so-called "Beijing Consensus") provides soft power in authoritarian countries, it has the opposite effect in many democracies. Soft power is the ability to produce preferred outcomes by attraction rather than coercion or payment, and China has announced major efforts to increase its soft power.

Even if China's gross domestic product passes that of the United States around 2030 (as Goldman Sachs projects), the two economies would be equivalent in size, but not equal in composition. China would still have a vast underdeveloped countryside, and it will begin to face demographic problems from the delayed effects of the one child per couple policy it enforced in the 20th century. Moreover, as countries develop, there is a tendency for growth rates to slow.

Assuming a 6 percent Chinese growth and only 2 percent American growth after 2030, China would not equal the United States in per capita income until sometime in the second half of the century. China is a long way from posing the kind of challenge to America that the kaiser's Germany posed when it passed Britain at the beginning of the last century.

China still lags far behind the United States economically and militarily, and has focused its policies primarily on its region.

Unlike India, which was born with a democratic constitution, China has not yet found a way to solve the problem of demands for political participation (if not democracy) that tend to accompany rising per capita income.

The ideology of communism is long gone, and the legitimacy of the ruling party depends upon economic growth and ethnic Han nationalism. Premier Wen Jiabao talks of reform but faces conservative resistance. The Chinese political system suffers from a high level of corruption, and should the economy falter, it is vulnerable to political unrest.

Whether China can develop a formula that can manage an expanding urban middle class, regional inequality, and resentment among ethnic minorities remains to be seen. Xi Jinping has been anointed the likely next leader (in 2012), but not even he knows how China's political future will evolve.

The current generation of Chinese leaders, realizing that rapid economic growth is the key to domestic political stability, has focused on economic development and what they call a "harmonious" international environment that will not disrupt their country's growth. But generations change, power often creates hubris, and appetites sometimes grow with eating.

Already, some younger party members and military men argue that China's success in recovery from the global financial crisis should lead to a greater political role. And the United States objected last summer when China defined its "core interests" as including the distant waters of the South China Sea.

Whatever Chinese intentions are, it is doubtful that China will have the military capability to expel the United States from East Asia. The region has its own internal balance of powers, and in that context, many states welcome an American presence in the region. Chinese leaders will have to contend with the reactions of other countries as well as the constraints created by their own objectives of economic growth and the need for external markets and resources.

Too aggressive a Chinese military posture could produce a countervailing coalition among its neighbors that would weaken both its hard and soft power. China's recent overreaction to a maritime collision near the disputed Senkaku islands led to a hardening of attitudes in Japan. A recent Pew poll of 16 countries around the world found a positive attitude towards China's economic rise, but not its military rise.

The fact that China is not likely to become a peer competitor to the United States on a global basis does not mean that the dangers of conflict in Asia can be completely ruled out. But given the global challenges such as financial stability, cybersecurity, and climate change that both China and the United States will face, they have much to gain from working together.

Unfortunately, hubris and nationalism among some Chinese and unnecessary fear of decline among some Americans make it difficult to assure this future.

(The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Joseph S. Nye.)

We have nothing to fear from the PRC/CCP except unwaivering authoritarianism and dictatorship

I provide the following comparative analysis in respect to the United States and the PRCC/CCP, presented to CNN by Dr. Joseph Nye of Harvard, who created the term "soft power."

(Joseph S. Nye is University Distinguished Service Professor at Harvard University, and author of the "The Future of Power," which PublicAffairs press will publish in February. In 1993 and 1994 he was chairman of the National Intelligence Council, which coordinates intelligence estimates for the president. In 1994 and 1995, he served as assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs.)

Cambridge, Massachusetts (CNN) -- A century ago, the rise of Germany and the fear it created in Britain led to world war. Some analysts predict a similar fate from the rise of China and the fear that is creating in the United States.

One should be skeptical about such dire projections. By 1900, Germany had surpassed Britain in industrial power, and Kaiser Wilhelm II was pursuing an adventurous, globally oriented foreign policy that was bound to bring about a clash with other great powers.

In contrast, China still lags far behind the United States economically and militarily, and has focused its policies primarily on its region and on its economic development. While its "market Leninist" economic model (the so-called "Beijing Consensus") provides soft power in authoritarian countries, it has the opposite effect in many democracies. Soft power is the ability to produce preferred outcomes by attraction rather than coercion or payment, and China has announced major efforts to increase its soft power.

Even if China's gross domestic product passes that of the United States around 2030 (as Goldman Sachs projects), the two economies would be equivalent in size, but not equal in composition. China would still have a vast underdeveloped countryside, and it will begin to face demographic problems from the delayed effects of the one child per couple policy it enforced in the 20th century. Moreover, as countries develop, there is a tendency for growth rates to slow.

Assuming a 6 percent Chinese growth and only 2 percent American growth after 2030, China would not equal the United States in per capita income until sometime in the second half of the century. China is a long way from posing the kind of challenge to America that the kaiser's Germany posed when it passed Britain at the beginning of the last century.

China still lags far behind the United States economically and militarily, and has focused its policies primarily on its region.

Unlike India, which was born with a democratic constitution, China has not yet found a way to solve the problem of demands for political participation (if not democracy) that tend to accompany rising per capita income.

The ideology of communism is long gone, and the legitimacy of the ruling party depends upon economic growth and ethnic Han nationalism. Premier Wen Jiabao talks of reform but faces conservative resistance. The Chinese political system suffers from a high level of corruption, and should the economy falter, it is vulnerable to political unrest.

Whether China can develop a formula that can manage an expanding urban middle class, regional inequality, and resentment among ethnic minorities remains to be seen. Xi Jinping has been anointed the likely next leader (in 2012), but not even he knows how China's political future will evolve.

The current generation of Chinese leaders, realizing that rapid economic growth is the key to domestic political stability, has focused on economic development and what they call a "harmonious" international environment that will not disrupt their country's growth. But generations change, power often creates hubris, and appetites sometimes grow with eating.

Already, some younger party members and military men argue that China's success in recovery from the global financial crisis should lead to a greater political role. And the United States objected last summer when China defined its "core interests" as including the distant waters of the South China Sea.

Whatever Chinese intentions are, it is doubtful that China will have the military capability to expel the United States from East Asia. The region has its own internal balance of powers, and in that context, many states welcome an American presence in the region. Chinese leaders will have to contend with the reactions of other countries as well as the constraints created by their own objectives of economic growth and the need for external markets and resources.

Too aggressive a Chinese military posture could produce a countervailing coalition among its neighbors that would weaken both its hard and soft power. China's recent overreaction to a maritime collision near the disputed Senkaku islands led to a hardening of attitudes in Japan. A recent Pew poll of 16 countries around the world found a positive attitude towards China's economic rise, but not its military rise.

The fact that China is not likely to become a peer competitor to the United States on a global basis does not mean that the dangers of conflict in Asia can be completely ruled out. But given the global challenges such as financial stability, cybersecurity, and climate change that both China and the United States will face, they have much to gain from working together.

Unfortunately, hubris and nationalism among some Chinese and unnecessary fear of decline among some Americans make it difficult to assure this future.

(The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Joseph S. Nye.)

You two sound like Gen Chi Haotian of the PRC 'Liberation' army who wrote in June 2009, "War is not far from us and is the midwife of the Chinese century."

It's no secret whatsoever the PRC/CCP is trying to develop a missile that is capable of striking a moving aircraft carrier. It's been the wet dream of the fascists in Beijing to sink a US aircraft carrier ever since 1996, when two US Navy aircraft carrier battle groups (24 warships) were dispatched to the Taiwan Strait to force the PRC to stop firing missiles round the clock (for seven days until the carrier battle groups arrived) during the leadup to the election on Taiwan that produced Chen Shui Bian as president, a result which was the direct opposite of Beijing's delusionary orders to the voters of Taiwan.

As the piece I published to this page written by Dr. Joseph Nye clearly states, the PRC is well behind the United States both in economics and in military capability. The proportionally small PRC middle class don't yet have clothes drying machines much less the capability to challenge the US in either economics or militarily. The PRC recently completed its first all Chinese technology and design commercial passenger airliner, with all of 29 passenger seats in it, which hardly is a sign of a superior quality of economy or self generated Chinese technology.

The aircraft of the POTUS Air Force One has defensive technologies that can get into the guidance system of each of, say, 1000 missiles fired at it to turn around instantaneously and simultaneously each and every missile to return it to its point of origin. And you think the PRC is going to develop a missile that can sink a US Navy aircraft carrier?!?

You PRC/CCP people make Dr. Strangelove look and seem sane.

Get real.

China has cheap labour, that is the theme for its labour intensive economy. China already had said it is willing to cooperate to reduce USA trade deficit. However, what is China expected to buy from USA? China asked to buy super speed computer many years ago, but USA refused to sell to China and if they did sell, it was comparatively low speed. So China had to build its own super computer and it took many years. China likes to buy high tech military equipment, but USA and EU continue to have the selling of military weapon embargo in place since 20 years ago. So China had to develop its own jet aircrafts and modern ships. China cannot buy any reasonably high tech equipment from USA before it is stopped by congress/senate claiming the endangering of national security. What does the USA wish China to buy in order to offset trade deficit imbalance? China had already bought a lot of Boeing airplanes for its domestic aviation industries. What else does USA want China to buy? Does USA want China to buy 800 million pairs of cheap jeans and shirts from USA? When it comes to rare earth elements purchases, USA actually pushed China to sell more and USA does not complain it will make more trade deficit with China. In order to offset the trade deficit, I suggest USA should sell its F22 predators to China before China finish its own 5th generation planes before 2020 years.

Your claim of Japan owns the Diaoyidao since 1892 is partially correct since Japan annexed Taiwan at then. However, Qing Dyanasty always own those islands and administered by Taiwan province at then. Also, Okinawa was part of the Qing Dynasty's surzerainty. People in Okinawa at then did not speak Japanese. So China had claimed the Diaoyudao much longer than Japan. It had always been that Qing dynasty always refused to sign those islands away.

It is fortunate that the Chinese governments had put a lid on the anti-Japanese feelings in the population. Personally I know many old Chinese folks who had run away from home when the Japanese invaded, it take a penny for them to go to war with the Japanese.

Last week the PRC/CCP minister of commerce held a rare press conference to say that QE2 in the US is an "attack on China." (He of course really means the CCP which, as you well know, US corporations and government have been propping up for three decades.)

QE2 will reduce the value of the PRC's USD$ reserve holdings significantly, likely by $1 trillion. Still, the PRC's USD$ forex reserve holdings could be reduced by even more, depending on how long QE2 takes to work its way through the US economy and, principally, the financial system.

You and others continually like to claim that the PRC/CCP is the banker of the United States. Well, there's nothing like screwing your banker! Is there?!?

Who among us doesn't enjoy screwing his banker?!?

One way or the other it wasn't ever going to be otherwise.