US Tells Airlines to Obey New China Rules: Propaganda Win For Beijing?
show comments
  • What do Korea, Japan, and Taiwan (people and governments) think of this decision? That would seem very important in knowing how to evaluate what Obama has done here.

  • rheddles2

    Obama is lucky the airlines are run by MBAs instead of the aviators who started them. Can you imagine Eddie Rickenbacker kow towing to the Chicoms?

  • Jacksonian_Libertarian

    Once again Obama display’s he is incompetent.

    • Andrew Allison

      Oh, you mean the Manchurian Candidate?

  • S.C. Schwarz

    China has watched what is happening in the middle east and correctly concluded that they face a weakling president and a US, and a west in general, in retreat. They will press ahead and they will win.

    Decline is a choice. The first time we elected Obama can be excused as a mistake but when we re-elected him we made that choice.

  • Andrew Allison

    Yet another demonstration for all the world to see that the USA has become spineless. Here’s a different approach: shadow those who are shadowing, and if they make an aggressive move, splash them.

  • Corlyss

    It’s a prudent tactical move. The warfighters didn’t obey the rules, and that was enough of a push back to make the point. Who cares if the commercial airlines have to id themselves to a hostile power as long as their progress thru the lanes is not impeded? Big stink over nothing.

    • When you ask, “who cares?” I would not treat it as a rhetorical question.

      • Corlyss

        Well, okay. So don’t treat it as rhetorical. Answer the question. Who cares?

        Here’s another one: What’s more important? A symbolic stand against provocation by commercial organizations whose charter is to make money, or a pragmatic compromise by commercial organizations whose principal function is NOT the conduct and execution of foreign or defense policy?

        • I don’t know. But if the people of Korea, Japan, or Taiwan care, I might care a lot, too, for our own sake. And most foreign policy is made up of symbolic stands. You can’t say some things are merely symbolic and others aren’t.

          I’m just coming to the end of “Defying Hitler: A Memoir” by Sebastian Haffner. (I’m listening on audio. If I had taken a longer bike ride this afternoon, I would have finished.) It’s all about the supreme, life and death importance of symbolic actions.

  • gabrielsyme

    If the policy goal is to contain China, one wonders if an early confrontation isn’t desirable? And if building an anti-China alliance is important, perhaps confrontation is especially useful here, given that Japan and South Korea, the West’s two strongest allies in the region have parallel interests in this particular controversy and need to establish better cooperation between themselves.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to and affiliated sites.