Talk:United States foreign policy toward the People's Republic of China

Pentagon Papers
Most of the article should be in reference to the Pentagon Papers - leaked government information about launching massive wars, bombings, and toppling governments on China's border in order to "contain" China.

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.87.220 (talk) 00:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

NPOV
Although a British Citizen, I find that the language used in this article appears to be biased. Less loaded or emotive language may help to keep the article more neutral whilst still being informative. Ksbrown 12:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. Sadly much of the language issues could be easily fixed by presenting thoughts more as hypotheticals than as established facts, which I will edit so now.  However, just scanning the text I see that there are some sentences that may require more rigorous attention still.


 * (Edit) Just to summarize essential points of my edit, I substituted "ComIntern" for "the Soviet Union", George Kennan's containment theory was by no means limited to, or for that matter, really applicable to the Soviet Union alone. I added that diplomatic relations with China were denormalized, and further issues of P.R.C. vs. R.o.C. U.N. recognition.  "...instead of a philosophy popular with fringe components of the U.S. political system" just didn't sit right with me at all.  If this is a philosophy of "fringe components" then I don't think it really belongs here.  Rather (and I know this is me soap-boxing) that reads like language calculated by P.R.C. diplomats to allow American policy-makers an apologetic scapegoat.


 * (2nd Edit) I have to say I'm not pleased with the whole idea. It amounts to speculation on secret plotting by the U.S. government.  I don't think it has merit for being mere speculation if for no other reason.


 * But, there are other reasons that I don't like the idea. For one, although America is quite capable of operational security, the idea of the U.S. government -in a time of leaks, public disclosure and the freedom of information act, scrutiny by watchdog organizations, and public and internal audits- maintaining secrecy on the U.S.'s intentions seems a bit absurd.  One could say three can keep a secret, if two of them are dead.  This is all part and parcel of being a democracy.


 * Then again I suppose it's possible with this openness chinese analysts have confused internal discussions considering American policy as the will and desire of the U.S. government. Somewhat as the "fringe components" referred to previously suggests.  But if that's so, there are certain things to keep in mind.


 * These discussions would be, what would for other nations, be discussions conducted behind closed doors, with other nations never being the wiser. Until the U.S. State Department makes official statements on U.S. Foreign Policy it is improper and inappropriate for China to respond to them in any way.  That is, to borrow somewhat from the Chinese themselves, this is an issue of America's sovereign interests.  In other words it's none of their goldang business!


 * One might say to that, what recourse then does China have if America prosecutes this policy in secret? To that, I'd refer back three paragraphs.  But moreover this is a policy that's supposed to involve and be with the cooperation of several third-party nations.  Are these nations supposed to be America's unwitting dupes?  Or are they maliscious co-conspirators?


 * Another reason I don't like the idea, speaking of third-party nations, is the plausibility of the practicality and implementation of the idea. The supposed primary method of containment is economic.  It may well be that the United States exerts considerable economic influence.  But as the article itself freely admits, even before China became the economic powerhouse it is today, the idea of containing chinese trade seems alike holding back a landslide with one's own bare hands.  I can not believe that American policy-makers could have failed to anticipate this.


 * Also since I think of it, it's America's over-riding policy to foster and expand free-trade. Of course, this has actually been a point of friction between the two nations, as China has not always played the trade game fairly.  Which it may be noted from the article has given China ammunition to support the existence of an active containment policy.  However, I would suggest not taking that for any more than exactly what it is.


 * This as well speaks to a seeming in-ability by the Chinese to take American Statements on Foreign Policy at face value. It has long been understood by, not just American diplomats, but the profession of diplomats in general, that with the historic diffulties of conveying meaning in cross-cultural and multi-lingual diplomatic dialogues make interpreting further meaning in diplomatic statements hazardous.  (Plus, I just like to think of Americans as no-nonsense straight-shooters in general.  Although legal disclaimers and tax law would seem to say otherwise.)


 * If chinese readers of this passage would permit me an uncomfortable example, there is the example of the pre-war dialogue between the United States and Imperial Japan. The U.S. essentially informed Japan that we did not approve of Japan's conduct in China, their alliance with the other Axis powers, and lastly their cementing that alliance with Japan's annexation of French Indo-China after France's surrender.  Japan chose to interpret that dis-approval as an implicit threat.  The U.S. further re-inforced our dis-approval with an oil embargo.  Japan chose to interpret that as an explicit threat.  But consider, most of Japan's oil imports came from the U.S.  Really the U.S. was unwilling to be tacitly enabling Japanese atrocities.


 * That is, when the United States expresses unease with China's human rights record, or their treatment of either Taiwan or Tibet that's really all it is. America is comfortable expressing itself so as -somewhat recklessly- America maintains no anxieties that anyone will fail to take their words at any but face value.


 * I have to say, taking all into consideration, I believe the excerpts from the 2006 U.S. National Security Strategy are taken out of context. For one, the quote on military issues should be considered as nothing more than a dry calculating analysis.  That is, American authors of military doctrine do not stay up nights contemplating what the Ugandan Army can do to the U.S. Military.  This is nothing more than thoughtful professionals giving respect where it is certainly due.  As for the next sentence I suspect (since it is not a direct quote) there is confusion on the difference between sentences in the imperative versus the declarative form, and would refer back to my previous thoughts. 68.48.160.243 00:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * @User:68.48.160.243 "One could say three can keep a secret, if two of them are dead. This is all part and parcel of being a democracy." ~

Apparently now in 2019, you could not be more wrong. Firstly America is not full transparency nor a true democracy. It is a representative democracy where leaders are chosen and the public hopes they do the job well with integrity.

Yet Snowden proved that America has been devious in spying and illegal activity by government. Hillary's leaked emails revealed that they were also threatened by Libya threatening the petrocurrency and deliberately hid the former Libyan leader sympathy towards black African Libyans.

America hides so many shocking actions from the public, under the guise of national security that were later revealed in recent years thanks to wiki leaks and Snowden.

My point is not to be biased and assume that America is not capable of evil and hence orientate this article in favour of america automatically. As Snowden later revealed your comment to be plain wrong and article consensus should be reconsidered after light of what we now know.

Source https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/01/06/new-hillary-emails-reveal-true-motive-for-libya-intervention/

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/us-coping-furious-allies-nsa-spying-revelations-grow-flna8C11478337 120.17.3.26 (talk) 08:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Agreed, and so I would like to propose a cleanup. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs 11:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I updated the article and removed the NPOV tag, please use or  for sentences, then detail issues here. - RoyBoy 19:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It would be difficult to have a 'neutral' article on this as topic and debate are emotional, if not to say irrational. There is no god-given right for anyone to be No. 1 and most of these things are very much in flux, especially since the Global Financial Crisis has knobbled many. There's even a new aspect which came in through computerisation and which may make this extension of the Cold War, i.e. Containment of China, obsolete. The Joint Strike Fighter Program can serve as a case in point. It is nearly 20 years old now - and has not produced results, only costs. In 1995 when it started, people would not have known that everything on computers becomes public knowledge, nothing is hacker proof. It has been said that the JFS program has been hacked, and that were the Chinese - so it is believed. If even the biggest weapons program to 'contain China' cannot be kept secret from the 'enemy', maybe Containment is an illusion. The hawks will not agree, but I wanted to put this out here anyway - the GFC and computers have changed the world. 144.136.192.55 (talk) 04:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

the axis of democracy
http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8871366 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.226.229.152 (talk) 05:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

Original research
Much of this article appears to be original synthesis, particularly the "Challenges" section. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 03:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on China containment policy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928145802/http://www.onlinenews.com.pk/details.php?id=94620 to http://www.onlinenews.com.pk/details.php?id=94620

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of One Sentence
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just deleted one sentence in the 1st paragraph based on two reasons. 1, The phrasing indicates that the policy of containment exists only in the perceptions of Chinese netizens. The main article and the references show the existence of debates, papers, policies. Therefore, it is not a well organized conclusion of histories and current overall situations of the topic. 2, Netizen is an informal and arguable term, which shall be avoided in an encyclopedia article. Please review this change, thank you all! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.16.69 (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * It is used primarily in Chinese perceptions and hardly at all in the US except quoting Chinese statements. For a start I am going to add “alleged”. --JWB (talk) 16:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The term is also directly used in US-American discussion. Scholars like Mearsheimer, whose works are well received in Washington, D.C., objectively make use of the term to describe a desirable US foreign policy towards China. (See John_Mearsheimer). So, while it is true that some influential persons in the US deny a China Containment Policy, others make use of the term in a descriptive manner. But should Wikipedia give more weight to political statements by officials (whether they are Chinese or US-American) or to political scientists' academic discussion? I suggest the following: Simply describe it as a geopolitical theory, as was done in the article String of Pearls (Indian Ocean) in the first sentence while trying to avoid the word "alleged" according to WP:ALLEGED. --2003:F6:2717:8600:6129:4E86:9D9E:9F74 (talk) 13:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

The external links give quite a good summary of U.S. containment policy of China
Nothing wrong with the links. They give a good progression of U.S. policy and thoughts of China from 2001 to 2021, it is very informative. A reader new to this topic will have a good summary of 20 years of U.S. thought on China. There are no unfairly anti American or biased links in it as far as I can tell. They are quite fair in their views of U.S. policy. There are also good sources giving us views from the chinese side. Views from U.S. officials and official documents are also represented in a balanced way. 27.104.203.24 (talk) 04:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The removal was appropriate per WP:EL. All relevant, reliable, and verifiable sources should be absorbed into the main text for a WP:NPOV representation of different viewpoints. Normchou   💬 14:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Then what are external links section for? These links have been here for over 10 years, no problems so far from anyone. I think we need some sort of vote before any drastic action.27.104.203.24 (talk) 15:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Before asking what are external links section for?, perhaps you can just read WP:EL, which clearly states that the burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link. These links have been here for over 10 years, no problems so far from anyone is not a valid reason for preventing the page from being improved. As a matter of fact, this whole article turns out to be largely based on WP:SYNTH that needs a major rewrite. If the listed external links point to reliable, verifiable sources, then they would be incorporated into the main text anyway. Otherwise, they should definitely be removed. Normchou   💬 15:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * So which are the problematic links that should be removed? They all seem fine with me. If there are really links with serious problems, I am fine with removing it. 27.104.203.24 (talk) 15:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The Guardian and Newsweek articles can be directly used as RSes. Opinion pieces such as those by Michael Klare and Mark Valencia can also be absorbed with proper in-text attribution. Self-published blogs are not considered encyclopedic content and should be removed. On second thought, I'd keep these links here for now, but I don't see a valid reason not to incorporate them in the main text once the rewrite begins. Normchou   💬 16:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I removed the blog link. 27.104.203.24 (talk) 16:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 20 March 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. The current title seems settled upon – other content discussions can take place outside of this RM. (closed by non-admin page mover) Skarmory   (talk •   contribs)  19:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

United States foreign policy toward the People's Republic of China → East Asia island arcs – The original article name was "China containment policy", but User:Normchou moved it to "United States foreign policy toward the People's Republic of China". I think the name was too lengthy and somewhat similar to Group of Two, so moved it to "East Asia island arcs". However, User:Normchou reverted my edits. I would like to ask wikipedians which name is the most suitable one? UU (talk) 07:41, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi. First of all, this is definitely NOT an "East Asia island arcs" article. Secondly, "China containment policy" was America's foreign policy doctrine toward China until the 1970s. But the concept has since been expanded, so a change of the title is appropriate for including more recent development. Normchou   💬 07:30, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You defined the article name? if more wikipedians agreed on this name, the article name will be definitely "East Asia island arcs", okay? UU (talk) 07:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Fine, then feel free to initiate an RM. Normchou   💬 07:47, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Fine, then feel free to initiate an RM. Normchou   💬 07:47, 20 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose not a plausible name for the title of this article, and definitely not the most WP:RECOGNIZABLE. The current title is fine. Pilaz (talk) 11:31, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose not very relevant--the arc business was original research and not based on reliable publishewd sources about US and China relations. Rjensen (talk) 13:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose What does "island arcs" even mean? Definitely not a commonly used term. Natg 19 (talk) 18:38, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Additional question, what is the difference between this article and China–United States relations? The title needs to be clarified, perhaps moved back to China containment policy. Natg 19 (talk) 18:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with . I can't tell if this is a content/POV fork, or if it's an in-depth coverage of a specific subtopic of China-United States relations. Pilaz (talk) 09:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This article is about the U.S. foreign policy toward China, including its history. "China-US relations" is the general overview of the bilateral relationship between the two countries. Big difference. Normchou   💬 12:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The history of the relationship is already covered in China–United States relations. The fact that this article doesn't even appear linked in the bilateral relations article is a hint that, at worst, this is likely a WP:CFORK; or, that at best, integration between the two articles hasn't happened yet. Pilaz (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

US Position on Taiwan

 * Sorry if I am possibly not up to date. But where is the source that says that Washington now opposes or has denounced Chinese soverignty over Taiwan? My understanding is that all the sources instead say Washington does not take an official position on Taiwan’s sovereignty. Meaning it doesn't oppose nor support, and that it's careful to emphasize it gives no position on the matter. Yet, I look at the Wikipedia article and they give the impression that Washington does have a strong singular position which is nowadays to actively oppose Chinese soverignty over Taiwan, and no longer be neutral in the matter. I think that's a misrepresentation of their policy, and so added in the relevant correct factoid that Washington states it does not take any position regarding sovereignty over Taiwan.  Because previous article make it sound like the US nowadays have one official position which is to oppose China's soverignty, when that is untrue. KaplanSun (talk) 11:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)