{"id":1883,"date":"2005-03-02T21:44:35","date_gmt":"2005-03-03T04:44:35","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2005-03-02T21:44:35","modified_gmt":"2005-03-03T04:44:35","slug":"a-new-cold-war-with-china","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/2005\/03\/02\/a-new-cold-war-with-china\/","title":{"rendered":"A New Cold War with China?"},"content":{"rendered":"

The China Post<\/a> perceives a new cold war with the United States:<\/p>\n

“A new Cold War is taking shape after last week’s U.S.-Japan joint statement<\/a> that China is their biggest security threat and that Taiwan is key to keep Beijing’s growing military might in check… It was the first time that the U.S. and Japan openly placed Taiwan under their defense umbrella. The joint statement represented the most significant change since 1996 to the 1960 U.S.-Japan Security Alliance. Just two days before that, U.S. Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Douglas Feith<\/a>, told the Council on Foreign Relations<\/a> that China was one of the ‘four key concerns’ of the U.S., the others being weapons of mass destruction, terrorism and failing states. While the U.S. would respect China’s aspiration to achieve national greatness, Feith said, this in turn would require Beijing to ‘forgo the threat or use of force to pursue unification.’
\nIn other words, China’s rise has to be in line with America’s ‘rules of the road.’ If not, he warned, ‘respect for sovereignty’ does not require the U.S. ‘to ignore the depredations of tyrannical regimes.'”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

We (especially Feith<\/a>) are in a position to say so because our government has respect<\/a> for the rule of law<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The China Post perceives a new cold war with the United States: “A new Cold War is taking shape after last week’s U.S.-Japan joint statement that China is their biggest security threat and that Taiwan is key to keep Beijing’s growing military might in check… It was the first time that the U.S. and Japan […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":39,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"","_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"","_seopress_robots_index":"","_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[676],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-1883","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","tag-antiwar-movement"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"meta_box":{"disable_donate_message":"","custom_donate_message":"","subtitle":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1883","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/39"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1883"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1883\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1883"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1883"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1883"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=1883"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}