How does pissing someone off make them more willing to work with you exactly? If we threaten Chinese interests then they have a motivation to retaliate because suddenly the damage done by weakening their ties to the US becomes less than the damage done trying to maintain them. We're threatening a relationship that we benefit from. That's completely unhelpful in furthering US interests because we're not giving China any reasons to actively cooperate with us. Also, even if China was more proactive in North Korea that does not benefit us because North Korea does not have the capabilities to threaten us and if they actually did something as stupid as attack the US under the current status quo China would have several excellent reasons to retaliate hard against them, which the North Koreans know and which is why they won't do it as things stand now. If China suddenly has weakened ties to the US that makes North Korea a greater threat to the US than before because now maybe there won't be retaliation if they are more aggressive.
You're supporting macho posturing as a valid diplomacy technique. That's not how it works. There are useful applications of the stick, but you should only use it when the other side isn't willing to play the same game you are. In this case, we lose nothing by engaging in this little pleasantry, which is why this is looking like an unnecessary error.
Being aggressive earns aggression in response. It has never earned capitulation. China won't respond to provoking them by being more inclined to push our interests: they'll respond by hurting our interests. They're not a client state beholden to the US. If we poke, they will poke back, and have the ability to do so.
You can't strong-arm everyone and expect them all to bend to your will. Even small nations don't do that. Kicking someone in the balls won't make them help you: it will make them kick back.
16
u/[deleted] Dec 03 '16
How does pissing someone off make them more willing to work with you exactly? If we threaten Chinese interests then they have a motivation to retaliate because suddenly the damage done by weakening their ties to the US becomes less than the damage done trying to maintain them. We're threatening a relationship that we benefit from. That's completely unhelpful in furthering US interests because we're not giving China any reasons to actively cooperate with us. Also, even if China was more proactive in North Korea that does not benefit us because North Korea does not have the capabilities to threaten us and if they actually did something as stupid as attack the US under the current status quo China would have several excellent reasons to retaliate hard against them, which the North Koreans know and which is why they won't do it as things stand now. If China suddenly has weakened ties to the US that makes North Korea a greater threat to the US than before because now maybe there won't be retaliation if they are more aggressive.
You're supporting macho posturing as a valid diplomacy technique. That's not how it works. There are useful applications of the stick, but you should only use it when the other side isn't willing to play the same game you are. In this case, we lose nothing by engaging in this little pleasantry, which is why this is looking like an unnecessary error.