More than fifty years ago Republican senator and one-time isolationist, Arthur Vandenberg, allegedly stated in support of his bipartisan support of the Truman Doctrine, "Politics stops at the water's edge." Either the senator was being economical with the truth or was caught in a moment of self-delusion. Politics does not--indeed, cannot--halt at the beach. Foreign policy is the export version of domestic politics. It can be nothing else.
A truism well understood by diplomatic historians is that a country's foreign policy must be compatible with the values and norms of a society--particularly when that society has a democratic polity. It is this organic rooting of US foreign policy and diplomacy in national norms, values, and worldview which gives foreign relations, American style, its uniquely schizophrenic nature. It is also the reason that persuasive diplomacy--that is the diplomacy of identifying and building upon coinciding national interests--is most readily accomplished between states of common values, norms, and worldviews. An example: The US and the UK can easily practice persuasive diplomacy particularly when compared with, say, Russia or China or any Muslim majority country.
The schizophrenic nature of US foreign policy--the dynamic and shifting tension between realpolitik and idealism predicated upon common American values and norms--came into sharp focus in a little noticed exchange between Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and Republican representative Ron Paul the other day. Dr Paul, who is today's equivalent of isolationist leader Arthur Vandenberg in the years prior to Pearl Harbor, excoriated Ms Clinton concerning American support for dictators such as Hosni Mubarak almost until the crowds in Cairo pulled the switch on the aging authoritarian. Secretary Clinton offered the realist justification to Representative Paul's idealist critique. She noted thirty years of cold peace between Egypt and Israel as well as the Egyptian opposition to the forces of violent political Islam. She did allow that sometimes the US got the balance between the ideal of promoting democracy and the real world needs for stability and predictability wrong but maintained that the various administrations had gotten it right far more often than the opposite.
The bifurcate nature of American foreign policy has bedeviled one administration after another ever since the first Roosevelt dragged the US kicking and screaming onto the global stage over a century ago. Woodrow Wilson practiced the diplomacy of idealism with a vigor no other president has matched. We entered World War I purely for the idealistic notion of fighting a "war to end wars." The end goal of Wilson for the war was the establishment of a permanent global organization with the chief mission of preventing aggressive war by punishing those states which embarked on aggression. To the cynical and resolutely realistic leaders of the major European states, the American president was hopelessly naive about the ways of the world, and they worked in concert to so arrange the peace that regardless of the existence of Wilson's League of Nations, the nature of the peace treaty virtually assured another war.
By failing to take the political sensitivities of critical senators into account, by disregarding the privileges of the Senate, and by neglecting to focus public opinion correctly, Mr Wilson brought about the defeat of his own creation in the Senate. The American public was too new, too unused to playing the part of a Great Power to turn its collective back on the previous generations of disengagement from the affairs of Europe or the rest of the world. It took the massive shock of Pearl Harbor and the globe wide bloodletting of World War II to convince We the People that playing the Game of Nations as a Great Power was an inescapable reality. The threats presented by the Soviet Union and China reinforced that view with the result that the American public monolithically rejected the old idea of being a symbol to the world, the "shining city on a hill," which had been our ideal during most of our national existence.
For a few years the tension between "realism" and "idealism" faded to nothing. The Cold War allowed both realists and idealists to agree on methods and means. Idealists, for example, did not carp at our support of authoritarian regimes against the much greater "evil" of international Communism. Nor did realists cavil with the promotion of "democracy" and free enterprise even though many of our clients and allies were neither "democratic" nor given to unfettered free enterprise and capitalism.
The tension reemerged during and in the wake of the Vietnam debacle. This reemergence came with a wrinkle, the idea that the US should withdraw from the affairs of the world because it was too "evil" and polluted the rest of the world with its purported greed, exploitative nature, and imperialistic goals. The foreign policy realists became an endangered species caught between two varieties of predatory idealists.
President Jimmy Carter was an idealist. He was not in the muscular Wilson school, ready and willing to use coercion to achieve a goal of moral perfection. Quite the contrary, Carter was almost of the blame-America-first variety of idealist given to feeling the US was much more the sinner than either a leader or a country much sinned against. His contraction of the American military and intelligence services as well as his elevation of the vague and ambiguous subject human rights to the center of the diplomatic pantheon shows this tendency. The lack of an effective response to either the Iranian two stage revolution or the unprovoked Soviet invasion of Afghanistan makes his position absolutely clear.
The American national character, the aggregate perception of historical experience by Americans generally, did not take kindly to the notion of a pathetically weak response to two direct, high profile provocations. While We the People might have been willing to let the Soviets have a pass on the invasion of a country most could not locate on a map, such was not the case with respect to the capture of the American embassy and the kidnapping of US personnel. The insult given to the American public by the Iranian "students" was not as great as that administered by Japan at Pearl Harbor but ran in the same direction.
As a result idealism was shunted aside in favor of realism. Specifically, it was set aside in favor of the Reagan version of realism which centered upon a reinvigorated US military and the increased use of coercive diplomacy. In the view of key members of the Reagan administration, a country needed not only a military capacity which was impressive on paper but one which was demonstrated to be both useful and used. Only by demonstrating a political will as well as a military capacity would US foreign policy be seen and taken seriously by allies and adverse powers alike. This is what made the unilateral actions such as the attack on Libya in 1986 and the sledgehammer invasion of Grenada important.
Cold, calculated, and unilateral use of military power provided an important context for the ongoing nuclear limitation talks with the Soviet Union. The same applied to all American diplomatic initiatives. When night fell, the minor uses of force proved sufficient to offset the potential debacle of sending troops to Lebanon only to withdraw them precipitously after a pair of high casualty terror bomber attacks.
George H.W. Bush broadened the definition of realist. He launched the American military in the largest SWAT type operation ever with the invasion and consequent regime change in Panama. This was unilateralism as last resort after lesser means of coercion failed. But, only two years later H.W. catered to the strong American idealistic strain of multi-lateralism by the patient building of a coalition of very strange partners as well as creatively using the UN as a fig leaf covering American policy genitalia with Operation Desert Storm. His approach seamlessly melded realism and idealism with good consequences which were very beneficial to US national and strategic interests.
Unlike the case with George W. Bush, no critic ever accused the US under H.W. of acting unilaterally or arrogantly or imperialistically. Nor could any aver that H.W. was some sort of neo-Wilsonian. He was coldly realistic in appraising American interests in play in the wake of the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait, but he was equally attuned to the music of idealism so important to so many in the American (and European) elites. Even though the US in 1990-91 could have abated the Iraqi nuisance without the aid of any other country beyond Saudi Arabia and the assorted Gulf states, he correctly chose to take the time needed to deploy forces to the theater of operations and build a coalition and gain UN approval.
When Bill Clinton came along, the realism once more vanished. Clinton was both uninterested in foreign affairs and indifferent to the concept of national interest. One consequence was he viewed genuine threats to American national security and interests not as foreign policy challenges or military contingencies but rather as matters of law and its enforcement. Another result of the Clinton idealist view was the belief that American good intentions, particularly when backed by UN sanction, would be obvious to all.
These two beliefs (not conclusions rooted in an accurate appreciation of real facts but rather beliefs rooted in values, emotions, and worldview) resulted in both the Somali debacle and the inept, limp wrist responses to terror attacks mounted by advocates of violent political Islam, most notably al-Qaeda. It was as certain as day following night that countries generally would perceive the US as lacking both a realistic perception of the Game of Nations and the political will to use force when force was the only correct response.
Unfortunately for the US and the world, George W. Bush was not a realist any more than was Bill Clinton. Pace the conventional wisdom, George W. Bush and his administration were Wilsonian idealists. This means they were quite willing to use military coercion to accomplish idealistic goals.
A realist would have seized the universal support given the US in the wake of 9/11 to mount a punitive expedition against Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.
A realist would have told the government of Pakistan to take a hike rather than to agree to allow most of Taliban and al-Qaeda along with their Pakistani mentors to hot foot it across the border into the safety of the FATA.
A realist would have let a secular regime no matter how odious and loathsome to remain in power in Iraq as a bulwark against both Iran and the advocates of violent political Islam. (Admittedly, there was one realistic but unanticipated good result from the invasion of Iraq and that was the sudden conversion of Gaddafi to the side of denuclearization and anti-jihadism, but that result was not worth the costs.)
George W. Bush, Wilsonian idealist, chose instead to embark upon the impossible--building Western style nation-states in both Afghanistan and Iraq. This was identical to Wilson's landing the Marines at Vera Cruz in order to "teach the Mexicans to elect good men." It has worked as well as that landing, which is to say not at all, but at infinitely greater cost to the US and the target countries.
Bush was supported at least at the outset because his approach, his goal of nation-building, fit perfectly with the crusading aspect of defining American mythology. It was organic to the widely held feeling that if only other countries were like us the world would be a much better place. It arose from the companion feeling that everyone everywhere wanted to live just as we did in all respects and regardless of cultural context. This, bucko, is idealism.
The current incumbent is also an idealist. His understanding of foreign affairs, insofar as he has one, comports well with the deeply held American belief in the rule of law and the primacy of democracy. Again this belief is applied without respect to the specific context of other countries. In his idealism Obama veers strongly to the Carter as opposed to the Wilsonian approach. Arguably Obama is even more loath than Carter or Clinton to practice coercive diplomacy let alone use American military power.
This may be due to Mr Obama having accepted without reservation the blame-America-first form of idealism. He appears to be sincerely convinced the world would be better if the US were weaker, less central to the affairs of the globe and less able to use its power (defined broadly) to seek its goals. He seems to be firmly of the view that national and strategic interest is a very bad, even evil concept.
Mr Obama has put the realists very much in the shadows and has done so with a high degree of political impunity. Americans, at least if some polls are to be believed, have resigned themselves to the idea that the years ahead belong to China and not the US. At the same time it appears from all metrics of public opinion that the American public has lost the most important single component of its past worldview--optimism. It is this factor which means the current, Obama orchestrated contraction of US influence may be irreversible.
In the past decade the pendulum has swung much too far under two presidents from two different parties in the direction of idealism. In doing so the pendulum has swung not in spite of domestic politics but because of domestic politics. The question which can--must--be answered in two years is simply whether domestic politics will shift sufficiently to allow a resurrection of realism in US foreign policy. Arguably, the US cannot survive as a Great Power unless that happens. And, unless the pendulum swings back hard and fast, there will not be any need for the sort of exchange typified by the Paul-Clinton dialogue.
The US will be too irrelevant for that. A not particularly pleasant thought.
Showing posts with label Bill Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bill Clinton. Show all posts
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Monday, January 17, 2011
Then There Is China
When neo-liberal Bill Clinton "opened" the door to China, the Geek went into one of his here-there-be-tygers moods. Contrary to the peace, love, and flower power words of the Arkansas Terror, the Geek viewed the normalization of trade and financial relations with the "Central Empire" (to use the most accurate translation of the ancient Chinese term for their country) as a severe self-inflicted injury to the US and its national interests.
The Geek made a set of fearless predictions in those bygone days to assorted military and foreign policy audiences. Among those were a massive hemorrhage of dollars and jobs to the benefit of the Trolls of Beijing. He also warned that the self-same Trolls would use their bushels of bucks to do the following: massively ramp up their military capacities, purchase allies wherever possible, seek exploitable fossil fuels particularly oil and national gas, seek to immunize themselves against crop failures, and, lastly but most importantly, undertake all measures possible to become both the regional hegemon of Asia and a Great Power able to limit the ability of the US to operate on the world stage.
The Geek's credible imitation of Cassandra was pooh-poohed by many who were in the audiences but the Geek serenely assured all, "Just wait fifteen years or so." Well within the time limit, all the dreary forecasts have proven correct as well as other, equally dismal, events not foreseen by the Geek. The Geek missed, for example, the Chinese scarfing up of Uncle Sam's IOU's to say nothing of the extent of the debt which was to come. He also failed to see that the Trolls would pursue crop failure immunization by purchasing farmlands in Africa by the multiples of square miles. He also overlooked Chinese ventures in strategic metals. But, overall he did get the picture correct.
In return for the loss of jobs--even entire industries and cargo ships filled with bucks--the American public got mounds of non-essential but inexpensive consumer expendables courtesy of the big boxes with Walmart at the forefront. More than the biblical character, We the People sold out our heritage for a mess of potage--shoddy pottage at that.
The Han Chinese, courtesy of the differing ideological imperatives of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush abetted by the sheer greed of the American consumer and the bottomline fixation of American businesses, have become the largest, most coherent, and self-confident tribe on the planet's surface. The combination of economic success, personal enrichment, an ever more powerful military, a very self-assured and authoritarian leadership have given the Han tribe both the political will and material capacity to treat the rest of the world, the barbarians, as a pseudo-colonial environment upon which to work their will.
The Central Empire has returned--on steroids.
The Chief Troll, President Hu Jintao, is soon to arrive for a state visit with President Obama. While President Hu is arguably the weakest chief of state since Mao declared the revolution to have succeeded over sixty years ago, his coming to Washington is an imperial procession, the Emperor meets the Chief Barbarian. It will be interesting to see the optics of the visit, to see if the given-to-fawning American president bows and kowtows in appropriately servile fashion.
It is commonplace to assert that the current relations of the US with China are "troubled" or passing through a period of "difficulties." This sort of terminology not only belabors the obvious but masks the fundamental reality.
The ground truth is that the US and China are rivals in a zero sum game. Insofar as the Trolls gain an advantage diplomatically, economically, or militarily the US loses. Insofar as the US can maintain the status quo, the Trolls lose. And, should the US miraculously reverse the negative trend of the past decade and more, the Trolls lose big time.
These considerations as well as the nature of the specific game of nations now being played by the US and China imply that the upcoming Hu-Obama confab has powerful subtexts at work below the facade of ruffles, flourishes, and banquets. The stakes are very high. One can be sure President Hu knows this. One cannot be so sure that Mr Obama does.
The reason for uncertainty regarding President Obama stems from the fact that while the Trolls practice a realpolitik of remorseless and ruthless sort, the American does not. Neither Mr Obama nor some senior members of his administration--think Secretary of State Clinton--are given to realpolitik other than on an episodic basis. This puts the Americans at a profound disadvantage when facing men who pursue the national and strategic interests of China all the time.
The American president has shown that he has no clue regarding the essential nature of national interest. He appears unaware that national and strategic interests are both subjective and defined only by the government and associate elite in any given nation-state. He also shows no sensitivity to the role played by history, both objective and subjective, in the formation and pursuit of national interest based goals. This means that Mr Obama and other key players on his "foreign policy team" are both blind and deaf in comparison with their Chinese interlocutors.
Given the profoundly different historical predicates of contemporary national interests as well as the zero sum nature of the game being played, it is arguable that the US and China have very few, if any, coinciding national interests. The gulf between the world views and perceived interests of both countries may be greater than that which existed between the US and the Soviet Union in the Fifties and Sixties.
A good illustration of the differences between the Cold War on the one hand and today's zero sum game with China is seen in the very conservatism of the Soviet leadership. The Soviets never sought to extend their influence as broadly and blatantly as have the Trolls in places far removed from the homeland. China has shown a capacity for "adventurism" in Africa, for example, far surpassing even the most ambitious aspirations of the Soviets during the post-Vietnam decade.
China's lack of cooperation on Iran or North Korea also has been emblematic of the gulf in national interests between the US and Beijing. Quite simply, the Trolls see little if anything threatening about the Iranian nuclear quest. Their intelligence and diplomatic establishments have discounted (correctly) any negatives emerging from the Iranian quarter. They have no interests directly involved in the Gulf states or the Mideast generally. The Chinese interest in Iran is limited to oil and money. As a consequence, leaning in the direction of Tehran suits the Trolls perfectly. The collateral benefit of the Iranian contretemps fostering division and diversion in the West is just a bit of frosting on the cake.
Maintaining the status quo in North Korea is what Beijing focuses on. The matters of nuclear weapons research and development or companion work on missiles is of no interest to the Chinese as the Trolls have the means and will to assure no threats come their way. The Trolls are rightly worried about a disastrous miscalculation in Pyongyang and will take the minimum necessary steps to reduce that potential. They will and are doing the same in the event of governmental collapse in the Hermit Kingdom.
The game moves from non-cooperation to direct confrontation in Southeast Asia. The Trolls are of the view that they are the regional hegemon by right. In short, the Trolls have picked up the mantel once worn by the Imperial Japanese. As a consequence, the countries of Southeast Asia have cozied up to the US. This gravitational movement has set the stage for direct confrontation between the US and China.
In Southeast Asia and the western Pacific littoral, the confrontation must be direct. Unlike the Soviet Union during the Cold War, the Trolls have no credible local proxies to wage the war on their behalf. The various and sundry proxy wars of the Seventies and Eighties gave the US and the Soviet Union an automatic firebreak and thus precluded escalation which, once started, must eventually run the risk of crossing the nuclear threshold. With the possible exception of Burma--a proxy of a proxy--China has no straw men to set up to do their dirty work in the region.
The Chinese awareness of the direct nature of the potential confrontation has been made manifest in their new weaponry and doctrine. The ballistic missile powered "spike from space" is directed against the floating sovereignty of an American aircraft carrier. The recently test flown J-20 is anti-US in its missions. Cyberwar is the hottest game in China--with the US as the main target.
Against this the US is operating in a--to put it mildly--budget constrained environment. The US will be cutting its defense establishment as the Chinese continue to develop theirs. While the Americans enjoy some technological advantages as with the next generation of remotely operated and autonomous unmanned platforms, we should not overvalue the advantages this confers. Nor is the US well advised to do in the future what it has done so often in the past, undervalue the capacities of an Asian adversary.
The Trolls do, fortunately, face some very real challenges at home. Inflation is growing and this may succeed where American importuning has failed, cause the Trolls to appreciate the value of their currency. China is also facing twin crises of farmland degradation and decline in the agricultural water supply. This will put a very real squeeze on the Trolls just as the majority of their citizens have come to appreciate a Western style diet. With the explosive growth in personal motor vehicle ownership, China will need ever greater amounts of oil at a low price lest the population suffer a crisis of rising expectations.
In addition, the Han tribe faces challenges from the ten percent of the population which is non-Han. The inevitable requirement will be for more and more repression. Ramping up repression will cause collateral and potentially destabilizing effects on members of the Han tribe. Balancing the needs for repression of the minority while assuring a minimal but growing amount of freedom for the educated youth of the Han tribe will prove to be a non-trivial problem for the Trolls of Beijing.
Recent polls have shown a disturbing acceptance of American decline and Chinese ascendancy on the part of a large segment of We the People. There is no need for this sort of bland indifference, for this meek agreement to an evermore constricted global role for the US. The worst need not come to pass if the present administration as well as what and whoever comes to the Oval in 2013 plays a realistic game of pursuing American national interest.
It is to be hoped that Obama 2.0 contains a backbone as well as an eye for American supremacy. The test comes off camera during the state visit. It comes not with respect to any American hectoring over Chinese respect for human rights but rather in the blunt or soft speaking on matters military and diplomatic. The test comes with President Obama either saying or avoiding saying, "Here I stand. I can do no other."
The Geek made a set of fearless predictions in those bygone days to assorted military and foreign policy audiences. Among those were a massive hemorrhage of dollars and jobs to the benefit of the Trolls of Beijing. He also warned that the self-same Trolls would use their bushels of bucks to do the following: massively ramp up their military capacities, purchase allies wherever possible, seek exploitable fossil fuels particularly oil and national gas, seek to immunize themselves against crop failures, and, lastly but most importantly, undertake all measures possible to become both the regional hegemon of Asia and a Great Power able to limit the ability of the US to operate on the world stage.
The Geek's credible imitation of Cassandra was pooh-poohed by many who were in the audiences but the Geek serenely assured all, "Just wait fifteen years or so." Well within the time limit, all the dreary forecasts have proven correct as well as other, equally dismal, events not foreseen by the Geek. The Geek missed, for example, the Chinese scarfing up of Uncle Sam's IOU's to say nothing of the extent of the debt which was to come. He also failed to see that the Trolls would pursue crop failure immunization by purchasing farmlands in Africa by the multiples of square miles. He also overlooked Chinese ventures in strategic metals. But, overall he did get the picture correct.
In return for the loss of jobs--even entire industries and cargo ships filled with bucks--the American public got mounds of non-essential but inexpensive consumer expendables courtesy of the big boxes with Walmart at the forefront. More than the biblical character, We the People sold out our heritage for a mess of potage--shoddy pottage at that.
The Han Chinese, courtesy of the differing ideological imperatives of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush abetted by the sheer greed of the American consumer and the bottomline fixation of American businesses, have become the largest, most coherent, and self-confident tribe on the planet's surface. The combination of economic success, personal enrichment, an ever more powerful military, a very self-assured and authoritarian leadership have given the Han tribe both the political will and material capacity to treat the rest of the world, the barbarians, as a pseudo-colonial environment upon which to work their will.
The Central Empire has returned--on steroids.
The Chief Troll, President Hu Jintao, is soon to arrive for a state visit with President Obama. While President Hu is arguably the weakest chief of state since Mao declared the revolution to have succeeded over sixty years ago, his coming to Washington is an imperial procession, the Emperor meets the Chief Barbarian. It will be interesting to see the optics of the visit, to see if the given-to-fawning American president bows and kowtows in appropriately servile fashion.
It is commonplace to assert that the current relations of the US with China are "troubled" or passing through a period of "difficulties." This sort of terminology not only belabors the obvious but masks the fundamental reality.
The ground truth is that the US and China are rivals in a zero sum game. Insofar as the Trolls gain an advantage diplomatically, economically, or militarily the US loses. Insofar as the US can maintain the status quo, the Trolls lose. And, should the US miraculously reverse the negative trend of the past decade and more, the Trolls lose big time.
These considerations as well as the nature of the specific game of nations now being played by the US and China imply that the upcoming Hu-Obama confab has powerful subtexts at work below the facade of ruffles, flourishes, and banquets. The stakes are very high. One can be sure President Hu knows this. One cannot be so sure that Mr Obama does.
The reason for uncertainty regarding President Obama stems from the fact that while the Trolls practice a realpolitik of remorseless and ruthless sort, the American does not. Neither Mr Obama nor some senior members of his administration--think Secretary of State Clinton--are given to realpolitik other than on an episodic basis. This puts the Americans at a profound disadvantage when facing men who pursue the national and strategic interests of China all the time.
The American president has shown that he has no clue regarding the essential nature of national interest. He appears unaware that national and strategic interests are both subjective and defined only by the government and associate elite in any given nation-state. He also shows no sensitivity to the role played by history, both objective and subjective, in the formation and pursuit of national interest based goals. This means that Mr Obama and other key players on his "foreign policy team" are both blind and deaf in comparison with their Chinese interlocutors.
Given the profoundly different historical predicates of contemporary national interests as well as the zero sum nature of the game being played, it is arguable that the US and China have very few, if any, coinciding national interests. The gulf between the world views and perceived interests of both countries may be greater than that which existed between the US and the Soviet Union in the Fifties and Sixties.
A good illustration of the differences between the Cold War on the one hand and today's zero sum game with China is seen in the very conservatism of the Soviet leadership. The Soviets never sought to extend their influence as broadly and blatantly as have the Trolls in places far removed from the homeland. China has shown a capacity for "adventurism" in Africa, for example, far surpassing even the most ambitious aspirations of the Soviets during the post-Vietnam decade.
China's lack of cooperation on Iran or North Korea also has been emblematic of the gulf in national interests between the US and Beijing. Quite simply, the Trolls see little if anything threatening about the Iranian nuclear quest. Their intelligence and diplomatic establishments have discounted (correctly) any negatives emerging from the Iranian quarter. They have no interests directly involved in the Gulf states or the Mideast generally. The Chinese interest in Iran is limited to oil and money. As a consequence, leaning in the direction of Tehran suits the Trolls perfectly. The collateral benefit of the Iranian contretemps fostering division and diversion in the West is just a bit of frosting on the cake.
Maintaining the status quo in North Korea is what Beijing focuses on. The matters of nuclear weapons research and development or companion work on missiles is of no interest to the Chinese as the Trolls have the means and will to assure no threats come their way. The Trolls are rightly worried about a disastrous miscalculation in Pyongyang and will take the minimum necessary steps to reduce that potential. They will and are doing the same in the event of governmental collapse in the Hermit Kingdom.
The game moves from non-cooperation to direct confrontation in Southeast Asia. The Trolls are of the view that they are the regional hegemon by right. In short, the Trolls have picked up the mantel once worn by the Imperial Japanese. As a consequence, the countries of Southeast Asia have cozied up to the US. This gravitational movement has set the stage for direct confrontation between the US and China.
In Southeast Asia and the western Pacific littoral, the confrontation must be direct. Unlike the Soviet Union during the Cold War, the Trolls have no credible local proxies to wage the war on their behalf. The various and sundry proxy wars of the Seventies and Eighties gave the US and the Soviet Union an automatic firebreak and thus precluded escalation which, once started, must eventually run the risk of crossing the nuclear threshold. With the possible exception of Burma--a proxy of a proxy--China has no straw men to set up to do their dirty work in the region.
The Chinese awareness of the direct nature of the potential confrontation has been made manifest in their new weaponry and doctrine. The ballistic missile powered "spike from space" is directed against the floating sovereignty of an American aircraft carrier. The recently test flown J-20 is anti-US in its missions. Cyberwar is the hottest game in China--with the US as the main target.
Against this the US is operating in a--to put it mildly--budget constrained environment. The US will be cutting its defense establishment as the Chinese continue to develop theirs. While the Americans enjoy some technological advantages as with the next generation of remotely operated and autonomous unmanned platforms, we should not overvalue the advantages this confers. Nor is the US well advised to do in the future what it has done so often in the past, undervalue the capacities of an Asian adversary.
The Trolls do, fortunately, face some very real challenges at home. Inflation is growing and this may succeed where American importuning has failed, cause the Trolls to appreciate the value of their currency. China is also facing twin crises of farmland degradation and decline in the agricultural water supply. This will put a very real squeeze on the Trolls just as the majority of their citizens have come to appreciate a Western style diet. With the explosive growth in personal motor vehicle ownership, China will need ever greater amounts of oil at a low price lest the population suffer a crisis of rising expectations.
In addition, the Han tribe faces challenges from the ten percent of the population which is non-Han. The inevitable requirement will be for more and more repression. Ramping up repression will cause collateral and potentially destabilizing effects on members of the Han tribe. Balancing the needs for repression of the minority while assuring a minimal but growing amount of freedom for the educated youth of the Han tribe will prove to be a non-trivial problem for the Trolls of Beijing.
Recent polls have shown a disturbing acceptance of American decline and Chinese ascendancy on the part of a large segment of We the People. There is no need for this sort of bland indifference, for this meek agreement to an evermore constricted global role for the US. The worst need not come to pass if the present administration as well as what and whoever comes to the Oval in 2013 plays a realistic game of pursuing American national interest.
It is to be hoped that Obama 2.0 contains a backbone as well as an eye for American supremacy. The test comes off camera during the state visit. It comes not with respect to any American hectoring over Chinese respect for human rights but rather in the blunt or soft speaking on matters military and diplomatic. The test comes with President Obama either saying or avoiding saying, "Here I stand. I can do no other."
Thursday, November 20, 2008
It's Official! China is Espionage Central
The Geek always gets a warm glow when an American governmental body publicly admits something that has been known sub rosa for a long, long time. Just today, the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, a bi-partisan group created to advise Congress on matters involving US relations with the Global Gorilla on the far side of the Pacific, issued a report acknowledging among other things that the Chinese government is hoisting every bit of data it can hack from American businesses including defense contractors. It has also been doing its best to swipe everything that isn't virtually nailed down from the Pentagon.
Holy shrimp egg rolls, Caped Crusader!
Say it ain't so! Tell us that really the Chinese are what President Bill Clinton promised they would become when he opened the door to nearly unimpeded trade with the Mandarins of Beijing. Doubters such as the Geek were assured that a vast and fast growing web of commercial ties between ourselves and the Chinese would not only benefit the American consumer through lower prices but would guarantee peace and prosperity globally by bringing China fully into the world wide market.
Yeah. Right.
Then there is president-elect Obama. Unless he has taken a firm grip on reality in recent weeks, his view of China is every bit as out-to-lunch as Bill Clinton's. When campaigning, Obama held that "China is on the rise." (With that the Geek is in full agreement.)
The Nice Young Man From Chicago went on to observe that "China is neither a friend nor an enemy. It is a competitor. (With that the Geek is in full disagreement.)
While it is true that all countries routinely do a spot or two of espionage against all other nations including "friends," China's boisterous efforts are far over the edge. The wholesale pilferage both accomplished and attempted in no way comports itself with the usual range of espionage conducted between "friends" or even "rivals." No. China's gargantuan appetite for stolen information, as well as the uses to which the proceeds have been placed, takes it out of the "rivalry" category and places it well in the space marked "hostile."
As the Commission states, the recent Chinese efforts in military modernization and space oriented activities are both "impressive" and "disturbing." When coupled with statements of military doctrine coming from Chinese defense intellectuals in the past couple of years regarding the centrality of aerospace and information warfare, the very rapid increase of Chinese capacities in these areas is beyond being merely "disturbing." They have reached the level of "alarming" or even "scary."
There has been little doubt for years that the Chinese seek regional hegemonic status at the least. Beyond that, the Mandarins of the Forbidden City want to limit the capacity and will of the US to operate freely not only in Asia but globally. The Commission's report did properly appreciate the first, more limited goal. It did not directly address the second.
The foreign policy players of the Clinton administration apparently were so blinded by the light of globalization, of free movement of goods and capital, that they never considered what China might do with the money and technology access it acquired from the United States. Ideology overwhelmed prudence.
Now we face the consequences. Consider just a couple of significant bits of data. One is military and the other is financial. The military note: Chinese air defenses are improving at such a significant rate that within a very short time no aircraft in the world other than the American B-2 and F-22 will be able to penetrate their airspace without unacceptable losses. The financial consideration: China holds (as of the end of September) nearly six hundred billion dollars in US T-bonds--the largest single holding in the world.
There are other significant pieces of the Chinese puzzle which can be adduced as well, but to do so would only depress the Geek. So, for the moment we'll depart this unpleasant subject.
Apologists for a "go slow and talk soft" policy with respect to China are eager to underscore the obvious--that China holds a veto in the UN Security Council. Well, that's something that never crossed the Geek's mind and he is utterly terrified at the possibility that China might resort to the (dare he write the word?) Veto. You mean, actually vote nyet! on something the US would like to see passed? Oh! Perish the thought!
Apologists would also like those sceptical of Chinese good intentions to remember that the US needs the cooperation of Beijing on critical matters such as the North Korean and Iranian nuclear weapons threat. Well, the cooperation of the Chinese might be nice, but it is not necessary, nor would it be sufficient to deal with these two challenges or nuclear proliferation generally, or terrorism, or any other matter.
As the Geek has posited in previous posts, the Chinese need us (or at least our cash and our technology) more than we need them. He has also suggested that a "work-to-rules" treatment of Chinese imports might send a message which would be unsubtle enough to be understood in the deepest reaches of the Forbidden City. The FDA has recently adopted this approach regarding imports containing milk or milk derived components. Finally, the FDA has done something useful!
The mood music players of the MSM have sought to assuage the doubts of people such as the Geek by insisting that President Obama will "govern from the center." The mooting of numerous Clinton Administration retreads is a guarantee that the Obama Administration will be staffed by experienced practical people with a sound understanding of how Washington and the world work.
Sure. Right.
The Geek is much relieved. It is so comforting to be told that the same gripless bunch who handed the keys to the vault and the store alike to the Chinese are now going to be in charge of dealing with the consequences.
Ah, with this in mind, the Geek can sleep the sleep of the saved.
Holy shrimp egg rolls, Caped Crusader!
Say it ain't so! Tell us that really the Chinese are what President Bill Clinton promised they would become when he opened the door to nearly unimpeded trade with the Mandarins of Beijing. Doubters such as the Geek were assured that a vast and fast growing web of commercial ties between ourselves and the Chinese would not only benefit the American consumer through lower prices but would guarantee peace and prosperity globally by bringing China fully into the world wide market.
Yeah. Right.
Then there is president-elect Obama. Unless he has taken a firm grip on reality in recent weeks, his view of China is every bit as out-to-lunch as Bill Clinton's. When campaigning, Obama held that "China is on the rise." (With that the Geek is in full agreement.)
The Nice Young Man From Chicago went on to observe that "China is neither a friend nor an enemy. It is a competitor. (With that the Geek is in full disagreement.)
While it is true that all countries routinely do a spot or two of espionage against all other nations including "friends," China's boisterous efforts are far over the edge. The wholesale pilferage both accomplished and attempted in no way comports itself with the usual range of espionage conducted between "friends" or even "rivals." No. China's gargantuan appetite for stolen information, as well as the uses to which the proceeds have been placed, takes it out of the "rivalry" category and places it well in the space marked "hostile."
As the Commission states, the recent Chinese efforts in military modernization and space oriented activities are both "impressive" and "disturbing." When coupled with statements of military doctrine coming from Chinese defense intellectuals in the past couple of years regarding the centrality of aerospace and information warfare, the very rapid increase of Chinese capacities in these areas is beyond being merely "disturbing." They have reached the level of "alarming" or even "scary."
There has been little doubt for years that the Chinese seek regional hegemonic status at the least. Beyond that, the Mandarins of the Forbidden City want to limit the capacity and will of the US to operate freely not only in Asia but globally. The Commission's report did properly appreciate the first, more limited goal. It did not directly address the second.
The foreign policy players of the Clinton administration apparently were so blinded by the light of globalization, of free movement of goods and capital, that they never considered what China might do with the money and technology access it acquired from the United States. Ideology overwhelmed prudence.
Now we face the consequences. Consider just a couple of significant bits of data. One is military and the other is financial. The military note: Chinese air defenses are improving at such a significant rate that within a very short time no aircraft in the world other than the American B-2 and F-22 will be able to penetrate their airspace without unacceptable losses. The financial consideration: China holds (as of the end of September) nearly six hundred billion dollars in US T-bonds--the largest single holding in the world.
There are other significant pieces of the Chinese puzzle which can be adduced as well, but to do so would only depress the Geek. So, for the moment we'll depart this unpleasant subject.
Apologists for a "go slow and talk soft" policy with respect to China are eager to underscore the obvious--that China holds a veto in the UN Security Council. Well, that's something that never crossed the Geek's mind and he is utterly terrified at the possibility that China might resort to the (dare he write the word?) Veto. You mean, actually vote nyet! on something the US would like to see passed? Oh! Perish the thought!
Apologists would also like those sceptical of Chinese good intentions to remember that the US needs the cooperation of Beijing on critical matters such as the North Korean and Iranian nuclear weapons threat. Well, the cooperation of the Chinese might be nice, but it is not necessary, nor would it be sufficient to deal with these two challenges or nuclear proliferation generally, or terrorism, or any other matter.
As the Geek has posited in previous posts, the Chinese need us (or at least our cash and our technology) more than we need them. He has also suggested that a "work-to-rules" treatment of Chinese imports might send a message which would be unsubtle enough to be understood in the deepest reaches of the Forbidden City. The FDA has recently adopted this approach regarding imports containing milk or milk derived components. Finally, the FDA has done something useful!
The mood music players of the MSM have sought to assuage the doubts of people such as the Geek by insisting that President Obama will "govern from the center." The mooting of numerous Clinton Administration retreads is a guarantee that the Obama Administration will be staffed by experienced practical people with a sound understanding of how Washington and the world work.
Sure. Right.
The Geek is much relieved. It is so comforting to be told that the same gripless bunch who handed the keys to the vault and the store alike to the Chinese are now going to be in charge of dealing with the consequences.
Ah, with this in mind, the Geek can sleep the sleep of the saved.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
The Geek Goes Off Message--Sort Of
Today the Geek read a post by a blogger for SFGate. (Sorry, the Geek lost the link, but as a button-pusher he is a fine tuba player.) The post well and truly rankled the usually easy going Geek.
In the estimate of the SFGate dude, the US and the world stand on the cusp of a genuinely world-historical moment. By this the writer meant the forthcoming election. Suffice it to aver that whatever the reasons may be, they have little if anything in common with Dr Martin Luther King's demand that Americans judge a man not by the color of his skin, but the content of his character.
It is true that the election of a man with a half African genome may serve to convince many Americans that the days of racism and exclusion are behind us. It is even more true that such is not the case. The celebration of the forthcoming world-historical moment is based on myth, not reality. Worse, it is a pernicious form of racism--giving a man a free pass on his character, ability, policies and proposed programs because of the color of his skin (and perhaps the charm of his smile)
The Geek will leave aside any commentary on the probable course of domestic policies under an Obama administration, particularly one backed by a solidly Democratic Congress much as he may fear the looming tidal wave of Progressive interventionism and the concomitant establishment of a run-by-the-experts "Nanny State." After all, the Geek's real area of interest and experience is foreign and national security affairs.
The bloviating Joe Biden, whose career as a "foreign policy expert" in the senate the Geek has watched with much mirth, was right when he opined that a President Obama would be tested in the first months or year in office. While contemporary public opinion polls may show that Obama is much loved outside the US and that many around the world expect that there will be vast changes in the relation between the US and other countries, there are more than a few sharp, able and sinister men waiting with long knives in hand to "test" the newby at the White House.
Even experienced and very able presidents have been tested, not by sinister design but by the normal course of world affairs. FDR was tested by the rise of expansive and aggressive Nazism. He knew he was being tested. He knew perfectly well that the Nazis represented a threat to core American strategic interests. Still, there was nothing he could do to ward the growth of the threat or even its breaking over the map of Europe with seismic force.
Harry Truman, another vastly experienced man, infinitely more experienced and able than either Senator Obama or Senator Biden, was caught flatfooted by the North Korean invasion of the south in June 1950. However, Truman's strength of character, well of experience and coterie of very able advisers allowed for the quick, effective and, in the short-term, very unpopular decision to go to war under the auspices of the United Nations.
Mr Truman's "police action" was widely condemned by the Republicans of the day. The war was unpopular--more unpopular than the Vietnam War during the worst days following Tet. It was decried as a "no-win" war, an endless war without point and without favorable result.
The long term view shows Truman was right. The war was "no-win" but, more importantly, it was the war that we did not lose. The outcome of the war established a paradigm useful today: the accomplishment of the minimum strategic goal of "not-losing."
When General Eisenhower defeated the loved one of American academics and liberals, Governor Stevenson of Illinois, those on the Left predicted horrors beyond count. The reality was different. Ike's military experience gave him both the moral authority at home and the stature overseas to take advantage of the death of Stalin and (with the accidental assistance of the South Korean government) end the Korean War.
Beyond that Ike's knowledge and ability allowed his administration to forge the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction which made the Cold War years stable (most of the time). Ike was tested in Southeast Asia and the Mideast and passed the tests not with an "A" perhaps but with at least a C+.
JFK, who in comparison with Obama was quite experienced, was tested multiple times. He failed the following: The Vienna Summit, The Bay of Pigs, the war in Laos, the war in Vietnam, the Hawk missile sale to Israel. If the Soviets had not proven more responsible than the jocks of the Kennedy administration, the world would still be recovering from the very narrowly averted nuclear exchange.
Flashing forward a few years, the Geek asks, "Do you remember the vastly inexperienced one time nuclear engineer turned Georgia governor and then president?"
You got it! Jimmy Carter. He was tested. As by the coming of the Iranian Revolution. He failed. Failed badly. Sure, the Shah was a less than lovable guy. His regime did violate human rights. But, is the aftermath, the mullahocracy an improvement?
Then there was the policy wonk from Little Rock (or Hope, if you prefer his boyhood home.) He was tested too. He failed. But, foreign policy was not his thing. You might recall that he was bigger on such matters as after dark basketball, school uniforms and Monica Lewinsky. Enough said.
The blogger in SFGate wrote one thing with which the Geek agrees completely. He characterised the past eight years of Bush/Cheney/neocon ninny regime as a "fetid swamp." It has been just that--at best. The current administration was tested and failed.
It failed because of ideology and willful ignorance. The failure of the current administration has been severely negative on the US and the world.
Senator Obama has no experience. He has little noticeable positive character. He does have much ambition. He possesses much capacity at building and playing to the myth of American racism and its bright shadow, inclusiveness.
Also the Senator embodies a great body of ideology. The Geek is impressed by the degree to which Obama is a True Believer in the Western European Left Democratic Socialist world view and political agenda.
The deadly combination of a miserable deficiency in character and experience and a hyper-abundance of ideology assures that when the long knives of test are drawn and sharpened, they will plunge deeply into the senator turned president--and the United States.
That may constitute world-historical moment. But, it won't be one to celebrate.
In the estimate of the SFGate dude, the US and the world stand on the cusp of a genuinely world-historical moment. By this the writer meant the forthcoming election. Suffice it to aver that whatever the reasons may be, they have little if anything in common with Dr Martin Luther King's demand that Americans judge a man not by the color of his skin, but the content of his character.
It is true that the election of a man with a half African genome may serve to convince many Americans that the days of racism and exclusion are behind us. It is even more true that such is not the case. The celebration of the forthcoming world-historical moment is based on myth, not reality. Worse, it is a pernicious form of racism--giving a man a free pass on his character, ability, policies and proposed programs because of the color of his skin (and perhaps the charm of his smile)
The Geek will leave aside any commentary on the probable course of domestic policies under an Obama administration, particularly one backed by a solidly Democratic Congress much as he may fear the looming tidal wave of Progressive interventionism and the concomitant establishment of a run-by-the-experts "Nanny State." After all, the Geek's real area of interest and experience is foreign and national security affairs.
The bloviating Joe Biden, whose career as a "foreign policy expert" in the senate the Geek has watched with much mirth, was right when he opined that a President Obama would be tested in the first months or year in office. While contemporary public opinion polls may show that Obama is much loved outside the US and that many around the world expect that there will be vast changes in the relation between the US and other countries, there are more than a few sharp, able and sinister men waiting with long knives in hand to "test" the newby at the White House.
Even experienced and very able presidents have been tested, not by sinister design but by the normal course of world affairs. FDR was tested by the rise of expansive and aggressive Nazism. He knew he was being tested. He knew perfectly well that the Nazis represented a threat to core American strategic interests. Still, there was nothing he could do to ward the growth of the threat or even its breaking over the map of Europe with seismic force.
Harry Truman, another vastly experienced man, infinitely more experienced and able than either Senator Obama or Senator Biden, was caught flatfooted by the North Korean invasion of the south in June 1950. However, Truman's strength of character, well of experience and coterie of very able advisers allowed for the quick, effective and, in the short-term, very unpopular decision to go to war under the auspices of the United Nations.
Mr Truman's "police action" was widely condemned by the Republicans of the day. The war was unpopular--more unpopular than the Vietnam War during the worst days following Tet. It was decried as a "no-win" war, an endless war without point and without favorable result.
The long term view shows Truman was right. The war was "no-win" but, more importantly, it was the war that we did not lose. The outcome of the war established a paradigm useful today: the accomplishment of the minimum strategic goal of "not-losing."
When General Eisenhower defeated the loved one of American academics and liberals, Governor Stevenson of Illinois, those on the Left predicted horrors beyond count. The reality was different. Ike's military experience gave him both the moral authority at home and the stature overseas to take advantage of the death of Stalin and (with the accidental assistance of the South Korean government) end the Korean War.
Beyond that Ike's knowledge and ability allowed his administration to forge the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction which made the Cold War years stable (most of the time). Ike was tested in Southeast Asia and the Mideast and passed the tests not with an "A" perhaps but with at least a C+.
JFK, who in comparison with Obama was quite experienced, was tested multiple times. He failed the following: The Vienna Summit, The Bay of Pigs, the war in Laos, the war in Vietnam, the Hawk missile sale to Israel. If the Soviets had not proven more responsible than the jocks of the Kennedy administration, the world would still be recovering from the very narrowly averted nuclear exchange.
Flashing forward a few years, the Geek asks, "Do you remember the vastly inexperienced one time nuclear engineer turned Georgia governor and then president?"
You got it! Jimmy Carter. He was tested. As by the coming of the Iranian Revolution. He failed. Failed badly. Sure, the Shah was a less than lovable guy. His regime did violate human rights. But, is the aftermath, the mullahocracy an improvement?
Then there was the policy wonk from Little Rock (or Hope, if you prefer his boyhood home.) He was tested too. He failed. But, foreign policy was not his thing. You might recall that he was bigger on such matters as after dark basketball, school uniforms and Monica Lewinsky. Enough said.
The blogger in SFGate wrote one thing with which the Geek agrees completely. He characterised the past eight years of Bush/Cheney/neocon ninny regime as a "fetid swamp." It has been just that--at best. The current administration was tested and failed.
It failed because of ideology and willful ignorance. The failure of the current administration has been severely negative on the US and the world.
Senator Obama has no experience. He has little noticeable positive character. He does have much ambition. He possesses much capacity at building and playing to the myth of American racism and its bright shadow, inclusiveness.
Also the Senator embodies a great body of ideology. The Geek is impressed by the degree to which Obama is a True Believer in the Western European Left Democratic Socialist world view and political agenda.
The deadly combination of a miserable deficiency in character and experience and a hyper-abundance of ideology assures that when the long knives of test are drawn and sharpened, they will plunge deeply into the senator turned president--and the United States.
That may constitute world-historical moment. But, it won't be one to celebrate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)