Walk, don't run

I can't help but be impressed with The Economist. We all know it's an excellent news source, but Kal certainly gets his point across very well with his latest piece. He nails it right on the head when China says there are no clear options in response to Iran's nuclear program. Why you ask?

The last thing China wants to do is support sanctions tough enough to bring down the Iranian government. After all, it was only last June when opposition protesters were shouting death to Russia and China. Beijing can work with the current regime in Tehran and doesn't want a change in management. Now some people are suggesting that China's commercial interests are dictating its position on Iran. I'm quite skeptical about economics playing significant a role, as trade in 2009 between China and Iran amounted to only $15 billion, while almost $1 trillion between the U.S. and EU combined. Those numbers alone would suggest China would be better off cooperating.

So does Beijing want Iran to have nuclear weapons? Not if it destabilizes the region. Saudi Arabia and the other countries in the region certainly don't want their Iranian neighbor to have nuclear weapons and would have little problem increasing deliveries to the West at China's expense if they felt it was to blame. The issue at hand though is China likes the status quo - it gets everything it needs from the world to focus on its domestic development. To agree to sanctions would disturb the balance China enjoys. As Kal's piece points out, there aren't any clear options for China that satisfies the West's demands and allow it to focus on development. Until such an option presents itself, the Chinese government will drag its feet.

P.S.

The same bottom line can be applied to China's position on North Korea. The Chinese government would rather allow things to progress naturally rather than take any action that carries more risk than reward.

Land of waning influence?

The New York Times ran a story a couple of days ago about Japan's warming relations with China. At the beginning it does a good job going to extremes, all but saying that Japan is going to nix its alliance with the U.S. in the short-term. However, at the end it redeems itself by accurately pointing out that despite the recent improvements in Sino-Japanese relations, there are still major differences between China and Japan (read Kim's paradise in North Korea).

I think that the end of the article is more realistic and the main point to walk away with. Japan and China are not going to be BFFs any time soon, as there are still deeply rooted memories of Japan's invasion of China and the atrocities its military committed. Also, they still have outstanding border disputes.

Closer ties between China and Japan are a good thing. The last thing the U.S. needs is an anxious Japan worried about China and effecting a change in Article 9 of their constitution. If that were to happen, China would no doubt ramp up its already ambitious military modernization. China benefits from continued U.S. security cooperation with Japan as it prevents such events from transpiring. Of course, this is applicable to the now. If in the future Chinese interests would be better served by a downgrading of U.S.-Japanese relations, Beijing could sweeten the pot for Japan. Although whether Tokyo would respond favorably depends on China's actions, Washington's treatment of Japan going forward, and if Sino-U.S. ties are tenuous.