In this post a couple of days a go I tried to shed light on the Chinese resistance towards the American-Korean drills. The conclusion was that China resisted by omitting to condemn North Korea of its 1) sinking of the South Korean Cheonan vessel, and 2) accepting the North Korean governments utterings. In this post I will try to clarify whether Chinese actions can be qualified as either a possession goal (as the title says) or as a milieu goal according to Wolfers.
Why a possession goal?
It is obvious that China feels threatened. This is seen in its lack of response (see above) as well as drills prior to the American-Korean drill. And not to forget the Chinese response to the drill: "We firmly oppose any foreign military vessel or plane conducting activities in the Yellow Sea and China's coastal waters undermining China's security interests. Under the current circumstances, we hope relevant parties exercise calmness and restraint and refrain from activities that would escalate tension in the region.". In other words China stresses Chinese security and not the general security of the region. They are not promoting security of say Vietnam or South Korea. This is logical within neorealist (pdf) thinking assuming that China subscribes to this thinking. This is clearly a possession goal.
Why passive?
It is very obvious. China has not yet acted. They have only stressed although they did it with the already mentioned navy drill. The question is whether it will continue to be passive or if they want to use muscle. To answer this question, a brief look on the difference between the United States and China will suffice. In first of these Columbia University podcasts the lecturer (without a name) claims that the difference between China and the United States big enough to deter China from doing anything.
No comments:
Post a Comment