作者：Yao Sun  来源：US-China Perception Monitor

On Monday, February 29, Florida Senator Marco Rubio held a rally in Buckhead, Atlanta, Georgia. The rally was right before Super Tuesday, a day when 13 states have their primaries at the same time. To the surprise of many, Nikki Haley, the current Governor of South Carolina, joined him at the Atlanta rally and spoke on his behalf, as Rubio had lost his voice from “working too hard”.

Haley’s 15-minute speech commented on Rubio’s integrity, competence, and his unique visions, different from other candidates, particularly Donald Trump.

Donald Trump was a hot topic during the speeches, with both Rubio and Haley heavily criticizing the Republican Party front runner, who has been building a huge momentum after winning three state primaries in a row: New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada.

The crowd cracked up when Nikki Haley said “Donald Trump is everything I told my kids not to be in kindergarten.” She also made a new buzzword by accident when she said, “we have two presidential candidates who are under investigation: ‘Hillary Trump’. Ops I mean Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump but that actually can be a thing.”

On the other hand, Rubio criticized Trump’s campaign team making their “Donald J. Trump” t-shirts in Chinese factories. He decried Trump as a hypocrite, as the New York businessman had advocated hardline China policy, running on the premise of winning better trade relationships with China and protecting American workers at home. Rubio said that this alleged hypocrisy says much about Trump’s personalities and described Trump as two-faced, dishonest, and untrustworthy. In addition, he made a clear statement on his position on bilateral trade with China, saying, “we want Americans doing American jobs.”

Interestingly, Rubio and Haley both ignored Ted Cruz completely, claiming the Republican nomination had become a two man race. Cruz’s name didn’t come up in the rally at all. In reality, Ted Cruz holds second place so far in the Party primaries and Cruz’s home state Texas will vote tomorrow.

The rally lasted longer than planned, as Rubio’s voice magically came back during his speech. Rubio got more and more excited with rounds of the applause from his supporters.

Also, Rubio brushed off the label that he is the “establishment candidate” and claimed that both he and Governor Haley spurned the establishment when they ran as Tea Party choices in 2010. Rubio also appealed to a large crowd of veterans, criticizing President Obama’s policy to cut the military budget, which, according to Rubio “made our country unsafe”.

He even touched on foreign policy, declaring his unwavering support for Israel, “Israel is not another country” and he will make America a true ally for Israel. This earned another round of applause.

The demographics of the supporters at the rally were mostly male, all age range, and mainly Caucasian with few minorities from minority demographics. When being asked why they support Marco Rubio, a local Atlanta woman said, “I believe that Rubio can change and grow the Republican Party.” A student from Georgia Tech, who came to the rally with a few classmates, said Rubio was the candidate in the Republican Party who “has the most presidential manner.”

Georgia Republican Primary Opinion Poll Source: The Huffington Post

By YAO SUN Feb. 29, 2016 on USCNPM

来源时间：2018/4/4   发布时间：2016/2/29

旧文章ID：15765

作者：Yao Sun  来源：US-China Perception Monitor

Earlier this week we shared an article about Marco Rubio’s rally at the International Buckhead in Atlanta, Georgia a few days before Super Tuesday. Rubio rallied in Georgia with South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, a popular governor in her own state and among Republicans generally.

The speech put special attention on attacking leading Republican candidate Donald Trump, who was ahead in the polls for the Georgia Republican primary. Below, we have a few clips of the rally.

Marco Rubio ended up taking second place to Donald Trump during the Georgia primary. Trump ended up with 38.8%, Rubio with 24.5%, and Ted Cruz with 23.6%. Cruz was also in Atlanta holding a rally last Saturday (February 27).

However, Rubio claimed solid victories in DeKalb, Fulton, and Clarke counties, the counties with the largest populations in Georgia which contain and surround Atlanta.

Filming by YAO SUN Feb. 29, 2016 on USCNPM

来源时间：2018/4/4   发布时间：2016/3/2

旧文章ID：15764

作者：Aaron Walayat  来源：US-China Perception Monitor

Last week, in an article about the Australian defense budget hike, I mentioned, almost irrelevantly, that the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QSD) might be making a comeback.

In a recent speech at this year’s Raisina Dialogue in New Delhi, Admiral Harry B. Harris, Jr. Commander of the United States Pacific Command welcomed the notion of quadrilateral dialogue between the United States, Japan, India, and Australia. Although he did not mention the country specifically, many observers have interpreted Harris’s statements as a multilateral way for the United States to try to balance China.

Admiral Harry Harris, Jr. Commander of the US Pacific Command

“Last year, India hosted Japan and Australia for its first ever high-level trilateral dialogue in New Delhi,” said Adm. Harris, “Some of the topics discussed were maritime security — including freedom of navigation patrols – and trilateral cooperation in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. An idea to consider is perhaps expanding this tri-lateral to a quadrilateral venue between India-Japan-Australia and the United States. We are all united in supporting the international rules-based order that has kept the peace and is essential to all of us.”

The United States has recently run freedom of navigation operations (FONOPS) in the South China Sea. This includes a late January 2016 operation in which the USS Curtis Wilbur (DDG-54) sailed within twelve nautical miles of the disputed Triton Island. Triton Island, one of the Paracel Islands, has been disputed between China and Vietnam since China seized the island in 1974 from the then South Vietnamese government.

The USS Curtis Wilbur (DDG 54), an Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer, sailed within 12 nautical miles of a disputed island in late December as part of a freedom of navigation operation.

Mixed messages from Australia

Former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd (left), pulled Australia out of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue in order to maintain stronger relations with China.

The QSD was an informal strategic dialogue created by Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in 2007. However, the QSD met a rough patch under Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, who sought closer ties with China. Many Australian politicians opposed leaving the QSD, including then Leader of the Opposition Tony Abbott.

Under Rudd’s successor, Julia Gillard, Australia sought closer relations with the United States and welcomed United States Marines in Darwin, Australia which overlooks the Lombok Strait and the Timor Sea.

Trilateral relations

While the dialogue never officially resumed after the Rudd ministry, cooperation continued bilaterally and even trilaterally among the four individual countries. In his speech, Adm. Harris mentioned that India, Australia, and Japan held a trilateral dialogue in New Delhi. The dialogue took place on June 8, 2015. David Lang, in a July 9, 2015 article for the Australian Strategic Policy Institute  wrote that the “trilateral cooperation between Australia, Japan and India is intended to support America’s presence in the Asia–Pacific and demonstrate a public commitment to international law, global norms and the established regional order.”

Japan has, in recent years, consistently participated with the United States and India in the annual Malabar naval exercise. The tense relations in the region have not been helped by this trilateral cooperation. This past week when the United States and India announced that they would be holding this year’s exercise off the northern coast of the Philippines in the South China Sea. This is the first time that the exercise will take place in a body of water other than the Indian Ocean, where the exercises usually take place.

Indian External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj (far right) United States Secretary of States John Kerry (center), and Japanese Foreign Affairs Minister Fumio Kishida, her counterparts John Kerry of USA and Fumio Kishida of Japan at India-Japan-USA Tri-Lateral meeting ,September 29, 2015

However, despite Adm. Harris’s call for closer dialogue between the four countries, and Vice Adm. Joseph Aucoin’s statement that Australian FONOPs operations would be “valuable”, it remains unlikely that the dialogue will lead to joint operations in the South China Sea, particularly from India. India does not have a history of joining joint operations and seeing as China has pursued close relationships with Pakistan and Sri Lanka, India faces the possibility of Chinese retribution of Indian operations in the South China Sea by stationing Chinese military forces in the China-friendly ports of India’s neighbors.

Chinese reception

Adm. Harris’s statements come at an incredibly tense time as the perceived Chinese aggressiveness in the South China Sea have put China add odds with ASEAN neighbors. Adm. Harris’s statements are sure to earn strong criticism from China, as previous attempts of cooperation between the United States, India, Japan, and Australia is immediately interpreted as encirclement of China.

“India, Japan, Australia, the United States and so many other like-minded nations can aspire to operate anywhere on the high seas and airspace above them,” Adm. Harris said.

“The idea of safeguarding freedom of the seas and access to international waters and airspace is not something new for us to ponder – this is a principle based upon the international, rules-based global order that has served this region so well. And for decades, the United States has conducted freedom of navigation patrols – or FONOPs – without incident. No nation should perceive FONOPs as a threat.”

Whether or not strategic dialogue returns under the QSD moniker is an inconsequential matter compared to the larger issue of the relationship of the individual countries with China. The security dialogue, however, is informal and should not by any means be interpreted as a military alliance. More than anything, security cooperation between the four countries would be to declare shared international values including the “freedom of navigation” and the “freedom of the seas.”

While the stated goal of protecting freedom of the seas and navigation in the Indo-Asia-Pacific region was what the Adm. Harris said, Chinese reception of the announcement will be sure to interpret Adm. Harris’s statements as a call for united military muscle to counter China in the region.

By AARON WALAYAT Mar. 4 2016 on USCNPM

来源时间：2018/4/4   发布时间：2017/3/7

旧文章ID：15763

作者：Aaron Walayat  来源：US-China Perception Monitor

On Feb. 29, 2016, China officially announced that it would be building “support facilities” for the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) in the African country of Djibouti.

“Through friendly consultations between China and Djibouti,” said Ministry of National Derense Spokesman Colonel Wu Qian during a February 25 press conference, “the two sides have reached consensus for China to build support facilities in Djibouti. The facilities will mainly be used for logistical support and personnel recuperation of the Chinese armed forces conducting such missions as maritime escort in the Gulf of Aden and waters off the Somali coast, peacekeeping and humanitarian assistance.”

When asked about the Chinese facility in the African nation Foreign Minister Wang Yi, during a March 8 press conference said the move to build China’s first oversea naval base in the Horn of Africa was “reasonable, logical and compatible with international norms,” saying that the Chinese “are willing to try to build some necessary infrastructure and support facilities in the regions of Chinese interests.”

Chinese interests in the region, according to Wang, involve China taking a larger part in “law enforcement and security cooperation programmes and constructively participate in resolving international and regional issues politically.” He also made sure to mention that China “would not seek hegemony or expand as traditional powers did.”

The choice of location for Djibouti is quite significant, as it provides PLAN with practical ability over the Horn of Africa’s important waters. Djibouti is located along the Bab-el-Mandeh Strait which connects the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden. The Gulf of Aden goes on into the Arabian Sea and the Indian Ocean. The Red Sea goes on into the Suez Canal and the Mediterranean Sea.

Location of the Chinese naval facility in Djibouti strategically located between the Red Sea (to the north) and the Gulf of Aden (to the east).

The waters that make up the Horn of Africa, which hosts 20,000 ships every year, millions of tons of crude oil, petroleum products, gas, and dry commodities, provide an incredibly important vein for the lifeblood of international trade. This area is also plagued by pirates from the region, including those from Somalia.

Piracy in the Gulf of Aden and the Horn of Africa

The alternative to using this important water route would be to take the long way, going around Africa below the Cape of Good Hope. This voyage would be longer, involve more operating costs for the ships, and would mean rising prices for goods carried by sea.

This route is particularly important for China. The European Union is China’s largest trading partner. With goods going between China and Europe, it is important for China to make sure that the waterways, which are integral for its trade, remain fluid.

Energy security

In an earlier article, I mentioned the importance of Indonesia’s Malacca and Lombok Straits to China’s energy security. Energy security in the Indian Ocean in the West is just as important as in the East. A look at crude oil imports provides a striking look at the significance of energy interests. In 2014, 51% of Chinese crude oil imports came from the Middle East and an additional 17% came from Africa. The sea lanes that connect China to the Middle East and Africa run through the dangerous waters. Even energy providers in West Africa and Latin America end up passing through the waters either through the Suez Canal or through the trade route that runs around the Cape of Good Hope.

Anti-piracy

Chinese trade and energy security depend on a secure lines of communication that connect China to its trade partners and energy providers. Pirates remain a constant security issue in the Horn of Africa which has led to more cooperation to address the security issues of this important trade route. China has continually pushed for anti-piracy operations in the region, evenjoining NATO for joint naval exercises in the Gulf of Aden in 2015.

Comparisons with the South China Sea

While China’s base on the Horn of Africa is surely meant to protect the maritime lines of communication that run through the important waters, there is also the possibility that the pressure will not only be put on pirates, but also on other state actors who have bases along the waters. Djibouti already hosts bases of the United States, France, and even Japan, who carry out anti-piracy activity around the Horn of Africa.

In a previous article, I described a purely hypothetical situation in which the Malacca and Lombok Straits of Indonesia could be blocked by Singapore and Australia, respectively. Such a situation would be devastating for the Chinese shipping that runs through the straits.

In another situation, should a situation arise where China is cut off from accessing the Gulf of Aden, and by extension, the Suez Canal, the effect on China’s trade and energy would also hurt China immensely.

However, while the straits of Indonesia are closer to China, China could, God forbid, use force to clear the Malacca and Lombok Straits. The Gulf of Aden, on the other hand, would require a long Chinese journey across the Indian Ocean in order to confront any sort of blockage, relying only on friendly ports to aid them on the voyage.

The horrifying situations I have described are unlikely to happen in the present situation. However, it makes sense that China would want an outpost to protect an interest as important and strategic as the Horn of Africa.

Indian Ocean region

Maritime interests

As the country already hosts the bases of other countries, the introduction of a Chinese base by the Djibouti government is not only tolerated but “welcomed” by Djibouti President Ismail Omar Guelleh.

“The world’s interests will be best served by a China active within the maritime domain,” writes James Goldrick “a China that has acknowledged its responsibilities to protect global communications and the rules-based order on which it too depends, and a China that prioritises trade flows over the creation of an extended maritime fortress.”

While a Chinese base in Africa is sure to raise eyebrows, it is important for Western observers to keep in mind China’s maritime needs, particularly the importance of secure trade routes.

“The essential requirement to ensure China’s energy security, and the prestige invested in building the Maritime Silk Road argues for China to begin building the means to protect its interests,” writes Malcolm Davis, “The task of ensuring China’s maritime trade and energy security, and countering the risk of a distant blockade is emerging as an important strategic interest that must shape the PLA’s future to a greater degree.”

In other words, China’s actions in the Horn of Africa, much like in South East Asia, are built around securing sea lanes. However, while China’s unilateral approach in the South China Sea has drawn criticism and has created tension in the region, China’s base in Djibouti is seemingly a step toward multilateralism to face the common challenge of piracy.

By AARON WALAYAT Mar. 14, 2016 on USCNPM

来源时间：2018/4/4   发布时间：2016/3/14

旧文章ID：15762

作者：  来源：US-China Perception Monitor

Carter Center Democracy Program intern Joseph Mansour shares his thoughts on US-China relations, potential challenges for the US and China, and how US-China relations affect his native United Kingdom.

This is the first installment of our series of interviews in which the China Program at the Carter Center is collecting a variety of perspectives on US-China relations. If you are interested in sharing your own thoughts, feel free to communicate with us at carterweb@emory.edu and contribute to the cornucopia of ideas!

Special Thanks to the Education Program

来源时间：2018/4/4   发布时间：2016/3/15

旧文章ID：15761

作者：  来源：US-China Perception Monitor

Carter Center China Program graduate assistant Ian Pilcher shares his thoughts on US-China relations, Chinese politics, and shares some personal experiences in China.

This is the second installment of our series of interviews in which the China Program at the Carter Center is collecting a variety of perspectives on US-China relations. If you are interested in sharing your own thoughts, feel free to shoot a short video (no more than 2 minutes) of your opinion on US-China Relations and share with us at carterweb@emory.edu — you might be featured next!

Special Thanks to the Education Program of The Carter Center for sharing the talents from around the world.

来源时间：2018/4/4   发布时间：2016/3/17

旧文章ID：15760

作者：Aaron Walayat  来源：US-China Perception Monitor

The Chinese game of “weiqi” (known to the West as “go”, its Japanese name) is an ancient game that focuses on encircling the other player. This game is very different from chess (also of Eastern origin) as its view on strategy focuses less on winning specific contests but rather on the right contests in order to win in the big picture.

“Weiqi” known in the West by it’s Japanese name, “go”

I, like so many other commentators before me, mention this Chinese game in order to draw parallels with global strategy. Encirclement is an oft-used strategy, and today, it plays a role in the Indo-Pacific region (albeit not in an entirely military way). Even if such a strategy is not being implemented, it is certainly being perceived by India as it fears Chinese encirclement through a much debated “String of Pearls.”

In 2005, an internal United States Department of Defense report entitled “Energy Futures in Asia” coined the term “String of Pearls” referring to China’s potential influence in the Indian Ocean region. In past articles, I have noted China’s interest in maintaining its interests along the global maritime lines of communication. The Indian Ocean region has long been an important means of Chinese global trade long before the ancient Chinese admiral Zheng He made his treasure voyages in the 1400s.

The sea lanes of the Indian Ocean, which connect China to Africa, the Middle East, and Europe, are China’s lifeblood, providing the means of Chinese energy and trade security. It is not difficult to find the Chinese interests in the region, and considering the dangers posed by terrorism and piracy, a Chinese role in the region would not be unwelcome.

The Indian Ocean and the straits of Indonesia are integral for shipping between China and Africa, West Asia, and Europe.

However, China’s fears in the Indian Ocean go beyond piracy and terrorism. According to a 2010 opinion piece on China.org.cn, Shen Dingli advocates for overseas Chinese military bases, arguing that “the real threat to us is not posed by the pirates but by the countries which block our trade route.”

It seems Shen’s concerns have reverberated into 2016 as China has already broken ground building a military facility in Djibouti. The base is situated between the pirate-infested Gulf of Aden and the Red Sea which connects to the Mediterranean Sea and Europe through the Suez Canal. The Djibouti government has welcomed China’s involvement and the country already hosts US, French, and Japanese military facilities.

China has already cooperated with NATO on anti-piracy operations in the Gulf of Aden and the base’s intent is to continue anti-piracy operations in the region. However, it is difficult to forget Shen’s statements about the real dangers faced by China and the need for military bases to prevent other countries to block China’s trade routes. More striking is Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi who, after the announcement of the ground-breaking of a Chinese base in Djibouti, hinted at the possibility of more Chinese offshore naval bases. Ankit Panda, writing for The Diplomat, highlights Pakistan, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, the Maldives, and the Seychelles as candidates who could potentially host another Chinese base.

Chinese bases have always been a concern for India, who sees China’s growing involvement in the Indian Ocean as a sort of encirclement. The string of pearls, a maritime encirclement of India, would be problematic for India as it would need to compete with China for its historical stomping grounds and the important maritime lanes that run through the Indian Ocean. Even more alarming for New Delhi is that the encirclement of the string of pearls would cut India off from easy access to Diego Garcia, the US-UK naval base in the Indian Ocean. In recent years, China has undertaken many projects around South Asia, investing in infrastructural projects and undergoing joint defense relationships.

Chinese President Xi Jinping with Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina

Bangladesh

China’s military cooperation with Bangladesh left New Delhi wary of Chinese involvement too close to India’s shores. Bangladesh and China have built a strong military relationship, with China as Bangladesh’s largest military equipment supplier. Around 2010, there was talk of Bangladesh’s Chittagong Port being a strategic enclave, one of China’s “pearls”. China invested heavily in Bangladesh, developing the ambitious deep sea Chittagong Port. It also consisted of a motorway that would run from the coast of Bangladesh across Burma into China.

China’s investment into Bangladesh and Burma can be seen as a way to bypass the Malacca Strait which hosts the majority of Chinese shipping. A port in the Indian Ocean would be a strong advantage for China to be able to bypass the Strait which is bordered by Singapore and the Changi Naval Base, which hosts US troops.

Despite growing suspicion from India, in 2015 Bangladesh and India signed an agreement to let Indian cargo vessels use Chittagong port. This move was able to relax Indian fears of the port being one of China’s pearls and opened the door for cooperation between Bangladesh, India, and China through the port.

Xi Jinping with former Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa

Sri Lanka

The relationship between China and Sri Lanka has been particularly drenched in political undertones. Under the presidency of Mahinda Rajapaksa, Sri Lanka sought close relations with China. Rajapaksa welcomed much Chinese investment into the country’s infrastructure projects, including the Hambantota Port in southern Sri Lanka, built alone one of the region’s biggest sea lanes. Another project, the Colombo Port City, which also had heavy investment from China broke ground in 2014.

However, in 2015, Rajapaksa was replaced by Maithripala Sirisena, who won the presidency with a platform critical of Chinese influence in the country.At first glance, Sirisena’s victory was a strong turnaround for the “string of pearls”, however, the Sirisena administration decided to okay the China invested project and construction resumed.

This should not be taken as a surprise, as Sri Lanka “is in no position to turn its back on Chinese investment or alienate Beijing.”

Xi Jinping with Maldivian President Abdulla Yameen

Maldives

China has invested heavily in infrastructure projects in Maldives. This investment strategy has given China a strong foothold among many Indian Ocean nations. In a September 2014 visit, President Xi Jinping and Maldivian President Abdulla Yameen, agreement on infrastructure projects including housing and road projects, as well as developing the Male airport and the construction of a bridge from Male to Hulhule, the island that holds Male International Airport.

However, in order to quell New Delhi’s fears about the close cooperation between China and the Maldives, President Yameen assured Indian Prime Minister Modi that Maldives has no intention of hosting a Chinese military base. Much like Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, the Maldives want to keep a strong relationship between both China and India without antagonizing one or the other.

Xi Jinping with Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif

Pakistan

Pakistan has had a long history of conflict with its eastern neighbor. Both countries have fought a series of wars with each other which pose major political dangers, as both countries are nuclear powers. In recent years, however, China has seen much potential in Pakistan and has pursued close relations with India’s western neighbor.

In 2015, China and Pakistan marked “their ambitious USD 46 billion economic corridor project with Beijing acquiring over 2,000 acres of land in restive Balochistan to develop the strategic Gwadar port.” From China’s perspective, the Gwadar port is incredibly beneficial as it borders the Arabian Sea. From the Arabian Sea, China would be able to send it shipping through the Gwadar port, through Pakistan and into China as the two countries share a border. Despite the potential of piracy and terrorism, the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, would be beneficial for securing Chinese shipping from the Middle East, Africa, and Europe without having to use the Malacca Strait.

While Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and the Maldives have all been sure to assure New Delhi that Beijing, while contributing to infrastructure projects, would not maintain a military presence that would force the respective country to choose between the two, Pakistan is a much more difficult situation as Pakistan could see China as a source of leverage over its eastern neighbor.

More concerning than the trade relationship between China and Pakistan is the military relationship that has taken place between the two countries. China has supplied much of Pakistan’s weapons and has even sold it eight submarines in 2015.

Despite New Delhi’s fears of Chinese encirclement, it seems that only Pakistan poses an existential threat to India. However, this is not so much a product of Chinese influence as it is of historical bad blood.

Chinese economic cooperation with countries surrounding India can be seen, in the weiqi board analogy, as an encirclement of India.

The weiqi board analogy

From the perspective of a weiqi board, it seems that China’s stones have spread around India, from Southeast Asia to Africa. However, in keeping the analogy, it would seem that India has set a few stones around China as well.

In the great proverbial weiqi board that makes up the Indo-Pacific region, while China has reached out for more influence in the Indian Ocean, India, Japan, and ASEAN have cooperated greatly in a way that also seems to be encircling China.

However, keeping with the weiqi board analogy, it would seem that the US (with the help of India, Japan, Australia and ASEAN) has been encircling China.

While India has made it clear that it will not be running patrols in the South China Sea, India and Japan have both taken a position on the situation. India has recently expressed much more interest in ASEAN, particularly with Modi’s “Look East” policy. While India has been rhetorically spreading more interest in ASEAN however, the reality leaves much to be desired.

More so than India, Japan has sought very close relations with ASEAN, so much so that the Diplomat’s Koh Swee Lean Collin calls it Japan’s “maritime pivot” to Southeast Asia. Recently, Japan has been much more involved in Southeast Asian infrastructure projects and has also pursued closer defense relations with the Philippines, one of the major parties in the South China Sea dispute.

In an earlier article, I mentioned that the US Admiral Harry Harris, Jr., Commander of the US Pacific Command, may be trying to resurrect the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue. Using the weiqi analogy, it seems much more apparent that rather than an encirclement of India by China, an encirclement of China by the US (and partners) is much more apparent.

Finally, while the string of pearls continues as an important concern in the United States and India, it is important to note that the nuances of China-India relations go beyond just the security aspects. China and India are both members of the BRICS and plan to cooperate through a variety of new international institutions like the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the BRICS-led New Development Bank.

Xi Jinping with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi

Also, China and India have sought close economic relations. While and China’s One Belt, One Road initiative (the maritime part of which is sometimes interpreted as another name for the string of pearls), is not only an attempt to create strong trade relationships between China and India’s neighbors, but with India itself. While a trade deficit between the two still favors China, there is still increasing Chinese investment in India.

Finally, not only are Sino-Indian relations being conducted between Beijing and New Delhi, but between the individual Indian states and Chinese provinces. The leaders of the states and provinces help to create a much stronger and intertwined economic relationship than would exist if only Beijing and New Delhi conducted relations.

Tridivesh Maini reminds us that “neither India nor the United States should look at Sino-Indian relations as a zero-sum game”. While India will continue to be suspicious of the string of pearls, the strategy (if it is one) will not push China and India into immediate conflict. Additionally, New Delhi’s relationship with Washington will not be at the expense of its relationship with Beijing as China and India will likely cooperate to face a multitude of issues. If anything, Narendra Modi’s achievement has been his ability to cooperate with Obama, Xi, and Abe in order to bring the cumulative economic cooperation for the benefit of India.

By AARON WALAYAT Mar. 21, 2016 on USCNPM

来源时间：2018/4/4   发布时间：2016/3/21

旧文章ID：15759

作者：Margaret Lu  来源：US-China Perception Monitor

The views expressed in this article belong entirely to the author and do not represent the views of the US-China Perception Monitor or the China Program at The Carter Center. 

I will always remember myself at age six, watching Hillary Clinton’s “women’s rights are human rights” speech, and being absolutely awed by her beauty, courage and natural radiance.  From that day forth, I’ve known nothing more than respect and admiration for the woman who has been living history her entire life and will one day rewrite it.  Almost a year ago, on my fifteenth birthday, Hillary Rodham Clinton announced that she was running to be President.  I have never received a better birthday present in my life.  I knew that electing a woman president to lead one of the world’s greatest superpowers will not only affect America itself but will also impact the international community tremendously.

America’s founding fathers would be dismayed by the citizens who would rather blindly support their favoured party instead of evaluating the individual stances and qualifications of different candidates and selecting the best. The 2016 Republican presidential candidates, with their bombastic slogans and obsolete ideals, can no longer embody the great party that was once represented by Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt.  The Democrats, on the other hand, have offered two main contenders who have proven themselves in the past to be effective leaders and will no doubt continue to encapsulate these merits in the future.

However, out of these two candidates, one must take a rational stance and choose the most promising candidate for America’s future.  Mrs. Hillary Clinton is one of the most qualified contenders for the presidency in American history.   A devout public servant, Clinton has served as First Lady, Senator, and most recently, as the 67th United States Secretary of State. Hillary has had extensive political experience and achievements, which contributes to her status as the most qualified candidate in  the 2016 presidential election. She offers American people with achievable policies that would maximize chances of happiness for American (and international) citizens of all classes.    Her stances on women’s rights, gun violence, health care reform, foreign policy, and immigration are all supported by her credibility gained from her lifetime history of advocation in these arenas.

Even with the support of these credentials, it has always been difficult for Hillary to gain popularity, especially amongst today’s youth.  As a millennial child myself, I empathize with the reasons why many young voters may not find Mrs. Clinton to be personable.  Indeed, Mrs. Clinton’s image has been really been associated with benevolence and genuinity.  Why? Because Hillary Rodham Clinton lives in a luxurious home and has longstanding connections to Wall Street and the White House. Mrs. Clinton is the quintessential image of class and success, which has been ironically counter-productive for her campaign.

Hence, it makes perfect sense for students to disregard her rationales and target her as means of expressing anger towards the upper class. Mrs. Clinton’s main rival, Bernie Sanders, has proposed plans that radiates with the freshness of revolutionary thought and are very relatable to us students.  His plans are so appealing that we are inclined to overlook his lack of the indispensable valiancy and experience to achieve these unrealistic policy plans.

Such reasoning is coherently  flawed.  Mrs. Clinton may be a part of the top 1% of privileged American citizens as of current, but like the rest of us middle-classed students, she worked her way up through education and perseverance.  She’s known failure and embraced prejudice in the past, and she’s devoted her entire life to fighting for those of us who still remain in the middle class. And that’s exact what sets her apart from other contenders. Not only her breadth of experience or her effective policy proposals.  It’s her remarkable strength of character.

Naturally, being head of state to the world’s largest national economy comes with tremendous stress and unthinkable challenges.  In the past, we’ve enthusiastically critiqued leaders who have made decisions that led to disastrous results (the Bush Administration comes to mind), yet we’ve never addressed the theory that the reason why some presidents failed was because they weren’t prepared or qualified for the position in the first place.

As much as I admire Sanders and as much as I want him to continue doing amazing work as a political activist, he does not possess the necessary traits of a president. Hillary Clinton is the only candidate with the born boldness, elegant  demeanour, and appropriate aggression for a President. Throughout her legendary life, she has asserted herself to be  America’s champion.  She’s prepared to be President.  We’re prepared to stand with her.

By MARGARET LU Mar. 21, 2016 on USCNPM

来源时间：2018/4/4   发布时间：2016/3/21

旧文章ID：15758

作者：Margaret Lu  来源：US-China Perception Monitor

Two of the most appealing advantages of Clinton as president are her established diplomatic relationships with governments all across the globe and her extensive experience working with international relations. Because of Clinton’s image as “an American Iron Lady”, she is usually perceived as stubborn and shrewd.  Contrarily, her diplomacy stances have actually proven her to be more rational than anything else.  In 2008, the United States had inherited international dissent from the Bush Administration.  As Secretary of State, one of Clinton’s primary responsibilities was to focus on America’s foreign policy.  Clinton accepted this role and contributed to U.S. diplomacy through a variety of insightful decisions, many of which are illustrated in her memoir Hard Choices.   During her four years in office, Clinton eased tensions with Europe, supported human rights activity in regions plagued by tyranny and terrorism, as well as made numerous notable foreign appearances and diplomatic visits.

Donald Trump (multi-billionaire and the Republican front runner) may not have had the same background with foreign policy, yet his ideologies are still widely met with favouritism by many American because the policies not only sound simple, but also heightens American status and effectively appeals to patriotism.

One of the more popular discussions for presidential candidates revolves around selecting a correct course of action towards Israel and the Middle East.  The U.S.-Israel relationship has always had a fundamental influence on activity in the Middle East.  During Clinton’s recent address at AIPAC, she not only directly criticized Trump’s stances as being dangerous, but also subtly promised to differentiate herself from the Obama’s status quo through enhancing their alliance.  She foreshadows her potential hard-line position on foreign policy as president through her remark, “some things aren’t negotiable and anyone who doesn’t understand that has no business being our president”…an obvious reference to Trump’s earlier comments implying that everything can be negotiable.  Clinton further establishes her stance through stating that she was prepared to enforce sanctions on Iranians again should they revive their nuclear program.

Terrorism (mainly from the Middle East) continues to be one of the world’s most complicated issues that demand an immediate solution.  With the disbandment of Al Qaeda,  rose the world’s current greatest terrorist group: ISIS.  Using fearful tactics, ISIS continues to violate human rights and impose terror through the false pretense of motivation by the Islamic faith.  Their extensive and effective propaganda extends to the Western world-demonstrated best through their recruitments of Western youth who eventually become sex slaves or child soldiers.  In response to ISIS, Trump offers his naive insight and almost child-like strategies.

“Take back the oil.”  Trump said during his interview with Bill O’Reilly from Fox News.  “Once you go over and take back that oil, they have nothing.  You bomb the hell out of them, and then you encircle it, and then you go in.”

“I would hit them so hard,” the presidential candidate continued.  “I would find you a proper general, I would find the Patton or MacArthur.  I would hit them so hard your head would spin.”

Nevertheless, when asked to expand on these plans, specifically when asked to confirm his intent to send military ground troops into Syria, the GOP front runner refuses to comment with the excuse that he does not wish to inform his “game plan” to the opposing force.

Clinton’s solution for ISIS seems far more credible and realistic given her previous experience fighting terrorism in the Obama Administration.   Clinton is firmly against sending American troops into the conflict zone, since previous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan confirmed that to be a counter-productive decision.  Clinton favours resolving ISIS with military troops already present in the area, most specifically, the Sunni tribes.  According to her plans, such efforts would be aided by additional intelligence units, sustained pressure on the Baghdad government, as well as maintaining focus that may be strayed by the Syrian Civil War.  Clinton asserts that this combined approach will not only choke off ISIS supply lines but will also provide leverage in diplomatic relations.

“Let me be sort of a neutral guy, let’s see what—I’m going to give it a shot,” Trump said during an MSNBC town hall, when addressing his plans for the Middle East. “It would be so great.”

Clinton’s response?  “Let us never be neutral or silent in the face of bigotry.  Let’s defend the shared values that already make America and Israel great.”

By MARGARET LU Mar. 23, 2016 on USCNPM

来源时间：2018/4/4   发布时间：2016/3/23

旧文章ID：15757