US needs to wake up to fast changing AsiaA succession of events taking place in Asia seems
US needs to wake up to fast changing Asia
A succession of events taking place in Asia seems to indicate that the United States' Asia policy is failing to keep up with the developments in the regional political arena.
US-DPRK(Democratic People's Republic of Korea) relations have become a factor that affects the stability in Asia, with the talks on DPRK's nuclear programme issue travelling along a bumpy road. Revolving around the nuclear issue, disputes between the United States and the Republic of Korea crop up frequently, estranging the two allies.
Sins-US relations are getting increasingly complex and different schools of thought inside the United States clash with each other over how to deal with a fast "rising China". The China policy, to a certain extent, has evolved into a bottleneck for the United States' Asia policy. The Taiwan question becomes ever pressing in the post-Cold-War period, but the United States has so far failed to come up with an effective way to address the situation.
In Southeast Asia and South Asia, the US anti-terror campaigns have achieved little, and instead served to distance the United States from the Muslim masses in the region. Thousands upon thousands of US troops are stuck in the quagmire of Iraq. There seems no light at the end of the tunnel on the issue of Iran's nuclear undertakings.
In the face of all this, US Asia experts have voiced their dissatisfaction over US Asia policy. They generally come to the conclusion that the US Asia policy lags behind the developments and that the definition of the US role in Asia is disorientated. The conclusion is drawn against the background of Asia's fast changing political, economic and security situations.
Strong bias has always blurred the US analysis of international politics, often leading to misjudgement and miscalculation.
Confrontation, for example, dominated Sino-US relations for 22 years after 1949, when the People's Republic of China was founded. This is because US policy-makers understood the event as an outcome of the Soviet Union's exporting of revolution, thinking China would go along steadily with the "Big Brother" concept for decades to come. The United States paid dearly for the confrontation.
The US involvement in Viet Nam offers another example.
Ho Chih Minh's drive for national unification was misread as the expansion of communism in Southeast Asia. Large numbers of American troops were committed to "contain" the "expansion." Again, the United States paid dearly.
The United States, it seems to me, is now misreading China's fast development.
China's high-speed economic growth is bringing wealth and prosperity to one-fifth of the world's population.
But some American political elite think the rise of China poses a threat and challenge to the US supremacy. They are haunted by how to come up with the best way to deal with China's rise, and hence the hesitation between engagement and containment. This, in turn, helps explain the volatility of US-China relations.
Apart from its misjudgement of the outside world, the wrong definition of its role in Asia is also responsible for policy errors.
Desire for hegemony has dominated US Asia policy since World War II. Seeking supremacy is at the core of policy-making considerations.
During the Cold War period, Washington claimed "containment of communism," but they were actually in pursuit of US hegemony.
Driven by these hegemonic impulses, the United States got involved first in the Korean War and then the Viet Nam War, taking upon itself commitments that far outstripped its strength.
After the failure of Viet Nam, the United States had to reshape its Asia policy, seeking strategic balance instead of supremacy.
The change of role he
A．Y
B．N
C．NG
题目内容
（请给出正确答案）
如果结果不匹配，请 联系老师 获取答案
更多“A. China failed to develop a s…”相关的问题
