Some More Reasons China Will Defeat The US

There are two contests currently underway in global affairs.  In each the stakes of the game are nothing less than planetary preeminence.  One of the two "games" is between adherents of political Islam, particularly violent political Islam, and the civilized states both great and small.  The other is between the US and the Peoples Republic of China.

Both are dangerous.  Both directly threaten the US and We the People.  Without going unacceptably far out on the limb of doom laden speculation, each--and particularly the second--are existential in the sense that should the US be on the losing side, life will change for Americans, and not for the better.

As was the case in World War II when the US was faced by war on two fronts, war conducted by two qualitatively different enemies, a choice must be made as to which enemy deserves priority.  In 1941 the leadership of the US and UK correctly estimated that Nazi Germany constituted the greater threat and thus merited the greater effort by the Western Allies.  Now, the leadership of the US must make a similar decision.  It must evaluate which threat--violent political Islam or expansionist China--is greater and, thus, must take pride of place in American efforts.

It is not an easy choice to make.  There is no doubt but violent political Islam constitutes a clear and present danger.  There is no arguing against the proposition that should the adherents of this objectionable religion based political philosophy gain greater influence around the world, the consequences for the US and other civilized states would be unpleasant and all too often lethal.  However, the potentials of violent political Islam pale when compared to the threat contained in Chinese expansionism.

Unlike the majority of those who advocate the triumph of political Islam (which are actors of the non-state sort), China is a fully functioning state with all the appurtenances of statehood.  Not only is China a nation-state, it is an authoritarian one, which means it has automatic advantages in long term planning and execution of policy.  China is not only a nation-state with an authoritarian political system, it is a country with both a long history and an equally long record of being quite historically conscious.  Historical consciousness implies that policy is more often than not based on trajectories and world views of very long standing, backed as it were by the power of time.

Given its advantages of organization, economic and technological predicates, population size and cohesiveness, unitary political will, and the very real force of time, China possesses a number of advantages in the Great Game of Nations which are denied to the adherents of political Islam.  In short, China is today's equivalent of Nazi Germany in 1941 while the practitioners of political Islam are the contemporary version of Imperial Japan in 1941--a major annoyance, an enemy which must be defeated in the fullness of time but not a true existential menace.

When considering the match up between China and the US, it is clear that China has a number of very potent advantages.  Some of these have been examined in earlier posts such as Beijing's severely narrow focus on Chinese national and strategic interests, its capacity to assure monolithic political will, or the Trolls' well demonstrated ability to plan and execute foreign policy with an emphasis on the long term.

There are other factors which amp up China's tactical capacities which merit close consideration since without effective tactics even the best strategy will fail.  A second justification for scrutinizing certain tactical matters is that the differing approaches taken by the US and China are illustrative of larger factors which militate against American success in the current contest.

Consider for the moment the notion of "doing good."  The notion of "doing good" is inherent in the concept of "nation-building."  And, as has been demonstrated by our interventionary operations in the post-World War II decades, the slippery critter called "nation-building" has been a centrality.  Actually, the roots of nation-building go back nearly a century when Woodrow Wilson sent the Marines ashore in Mexico in order "to teach the Mexicans to elect good men."

Nation-building is one of those ideas which reads well in academic conferences or policy discussions by ad hoc inter-agency working groups sitting around highly polished fine wood tables in some chancery somewhere.  In the real world, particularly among those benighted folk upon whose backs a nation will be built, the idea is not so well received.

The idea is even less well received when it is presented--as it always is--with overtones of condescension, of the well intentioned expert parachuting in with salvation for the heathen contained in his briefcase or on his flash drive.  The wannabe nation-builder does nothing to enhance the favor with which his efforts at uplift are received when--as inevitably it must be--hectoring replaces mere condescension.

No one likes to be told he is somehow lacking, somehow inferior, somehow in need of guidance, moral uplift, political transformation.  No member of a traditional society and culture enjoys hearing how it is deficient and what he must do to "build" his nation.  The universal crustiness of the human critter assures that the most well intended nation-building will fail unless the "builders" limit their role to that of provider of money and other goodies.

The Americans (and other Westerners as well) have never gotten the message no matter how often it has been delivered by different recipients of our nation-building efforts.  In Afghanistan today as in South Vietnam fifty years ago or Mexico a half century before that, Americans are committed to nation-building complete with the ribbons and bows of hectoring and implicit superiority.  The result is simple: No matter how much "good" we do, the efforts are invariably resented and rejected by the objects of our succor and assistance.

The Chinese are not so high minded.  Perhaps because China was the target of nation-building in bygone days, the Trolls and their agents are willing to simply pass out money and urge that Chinese companies be hired for infrastructure projects.  China does not seek to build nations but rather to secure influence within existing governments and the states these rule.  To this end the Trolls will distribute money, seek to recoup as much of the dole as possible through the awarding of contracts, and in the process gain and retain influence within both the government of the target state and its associated elite(s.)

This is a coldly realistic process of pursuing Chinese national and strategic interests.  The Trolls have no lofty aspirations of uplifting the heathens, of changing the local culture, society, or polity for the "better" or otherwise doing "good" for the local "masses."  Chinese national and strategic interests in no way require the transformation of the recipient country into a simulacrum of China.

This diplomatic philosophy is in sharp opposition with that of the US (and some other Western states.)  It doesn't matter if neocon ninnies or High Minded Progressives are running the White House or congress, the US always demands the recipient become some sort of Western style democratic polity with a society marked by the full panoply of "rights" enjoyed by Americans today and an economy having all the features of a well regulated, "rule of law" approach.

The implications of this sharp set of distinctions are too self-evident to require elucidation.  Or, at least, they should be.

For the Deep Thinking Denizens Inside the Beltway, the distinctions and their impact do not seem so self-evident.  This dynamic comes into sharper focus in another area of difference between the methods of the Trolls and those favored by the US government and its fellow travelers within our domestic elites.

The second illustration of the differences between the Chinese and American ways of 'nation-building" is the role of corruption.  To Americans at the policy level corruption is anathema.  To the Trolls it just another way of acquiring and keeping influence.  To us it is a sin.  To the Chinese it is a fact of life to be used in the pursuit of interest.

In many places around the world graft, corruption, nepotism, and a lack of transparency are a normal and expectable part of life.  When these features of quotidian existence become a problem for the local elite or the citizenry generally, it is usually because the fruits of corruption are not distributed equitably.  It is not the corruption per se but rather its lack of breadth which cause outrage.

The American answer to corruption is to stamp it out with the moral fervor of a health Nazi facing a McDonald's warehouse.  The Chinese response is to build corruption in as a normal cost and try to make sure it is spread around appropriately.  The more spreading the better as such assures more people will be tied in effectively to the Chinese program.

Our approach is more--more laws, more regulations, more courts, more commissions, more oversight, more investigators, more cops.  The Chinese approach is also more--more money and more widespread distribution.

Pop quiz:  Which approach is more likely to produce more positive results with more people in the recipient traditional society?

This brief consideration of two tactical advantages enjoyed by China over the US today illustrates why it is critical for us to stop and take a hard look at the two threats facing the Americans today.  It also helps in understanding why China is the larger, more important threat as well as why the US is not likely to prevail in the contest underway today.

To put it all quite simply, when the deck is stacked against you is it is with respect to the Trolls time is not on your side.  The US does not have the luxury of sitting back and wondering what we should do--if anything.  The real deal is the Obama administration has no viable option other than to remove its collective head from the sand and realize that the Chinese are cruising on by us on the fast track to global preeminence.

Really, Mr Obama is that why you received the Nobel Peace Prize?

Beyond (Un)Reasonable Doubt

Google can be--and is--both loved and hated. At the moment one has to love the search engine company since it and it alone has had the courage and savvy to tell it like it is. To let the world and its brother know that the Chinese government is executing major, very sophisticated cyber-espionage attacks against not only Google but thirty some other major companies as well.

Google placed the cyber attacks on top of the Beijing demands for search engine self-censorship as a reason to consider withdrawing entirely from the enormous Chinese marketplace. While analysts have debated the long and short-term economic impact of this threat, the reality is that someone, sometime, has to take the toughest of tough lines against the hostile Chinese government.

In the normal course of affairs it is governments which take the hardline, make the threats, issue ultimata, but when the steward of international affairs is lacking in will or capacity to do the right thing, then it is necessary that a private enterprise step up and take a whack at the problem. This is what Google is doing. It may be acting in its own best interests but in doing so it is acting in the best interests of the US as well.

"Engine Charley" Wilson may have been wrong when he stated, "What is good for General Motors is good for the country." back when he was Eisenhower's Secretary of Defense. If today the panjandrums of Google were to make a similar comment, they would be right on.

Reputedly the US State Department will issue a "demarche" in the next week or so on the Chinese matter. If it is keeping with past Notes, the US will express "concern" perhaps even "grave concern" over the allegations. It will request that the Beijing government investigate the situation. It might even be so bold as to allude to unspecified "consequences" if the Chinese do not cease and desist in their wholesale efforts to steal everything not nailed down in cyberspace.

If the past is the reliable guide it normally is, the Chinese government will reject the demarche. The rejection will contain all the usual rhetoric about "Cold War thinking" and US "backsliding." Chinese foreign ministry spokespeople will invoke the sacred totem of "Chinese sovereignty" and Chinese "internal affairs" along with the new fetish of the supremacy and perfection of the Chinese legal and judicial systems.

The ball will be hit back over the net by the half-hearted folks of Foggy Bottom. They (and quite possibly SecState Clinton) will "deplore" the Chinese attitude but otherwise will let the matter slide away into diplomatic oblivion.

The three step model which has characterized Sino-American relations for some years now typifies what the Secretary of State described a few days ago as she started off on her Asian jaunt as a "mature" relationship between the US and China. Apparently Ms Clinton sees a "mature" relation as being inherently asymmetrical, that is, a relationship in which one party lies, cheats, steals, and engages in a general sort of Adolescent Oppositional Defiance Disorder and the other party is endlessly patient, understanding, willing to compromise, and quite willing to ignore manifestations of hostile behavior.

In all probability the neat, lawyerly minds of Secretary Clinton, President Obama, and other legal types in the administration are greatly perturbed by the inability to prove the Chinese culpability in this as well as other instances of cyber-espionage to the criminal justice standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt." Lawyers apparently have such tidy little minds that it is difficult or even impossible for them to get a grip on the messy realities of normal international discourse such as espionage (whether cyber or the old fashioned sort) and the use of terror tactics by both non-state and state actors.

The reality of cyber based espionage is that it is nearly impossible to prove to the standards demanded by an American court of law. That ground truth has been reemphasized by such non-techno-wonks as the National Security Council as well as by legions of highly competent techies.

Even if it can be demonstrated that the attacks originated in China using a server located in Taiwan that in no way proves the Beijing regime either executed, authorized, or knew about the attacks. While the sophistication of the effort in its exploitation of a small flaw in the software for pre-Internet Explorer 8 can be best (and perhaps only) explained by direct governmental and military involvement, it does not in and of itself prove the Trolls of Beijing masterminded the operation.

Without the highest standard of proof, the lawyers of the Obama administration cannot bring themselves to do more than issue pro forma expressions of concern, of minor irritation. Without the sort of incontrovertible evidence which would make for a slam-dunk conviction in Federal Court, the pettifoggers of the administration cannot do more than wring their hands over the theft of billions of dollars in US intellectual property or even the penetration of critical defense establishment systems.

This orientation, this narrowness of both mind and vision, assures that President Obama and presumably others in his administration will take a far more vigorous position with the violations of human rights executed by the Beijing authorities in their (successful) efforts to censor searches and sites. Human rights is a far more attractive mast on which to nail the colors of indignation then is the fundamental reality that the Chinese government and military are engaged in wholesale theft of American property and defense secrets. After all there is no real need to prove anything in the realm of human rights abridgement. The allegation is enough.

Then, of course, there is the other inhibition operating on the Obama administration. Not only do the Trolls of Beijing hold a trillion dollars more or less of US government notes, the administration and the "Progressive Caucus" in Congress need the same Trolls to pick up a few tens of billions more in order that the "Transformational Agenda" can be executed in full.

Perhaps these less-than-reality oriented, agenda driven, multi-cultural advocates of the post-modern era are totally unconcerned with Chinese espionage. In their mental calculus the theft of intellectual property from mere corporations or the undercutting of US national security and defense capacities is of little moment compared to the pressing need to put the Transformational Agenda into full effect.

After all, which is more important, the present and future security and economic strength of the nation or the bringing of the blessings of True Belief to the benighted multitude of Americans? It seems the Obama administration has made the choice.

Now, perhaps, the founders of Google are regretting their full-throated support of Mr Obama. That would be a nice wrinkle to the current imbroglio.

Obama Losing Streak Goes On And On....

Coming off of a big, big loss to the Ayatollah Isotopes which once again showed itself poised and ready to rumble, President Obama was handed a second hard right to the chin by the Gnomes of Beijing.

Despite fears that the President's Own Homeboys would not be up for the challenge of Beijing, the Homeboys were set to go and definitely amped to the max for the encounter. Overlooked in the pre-scrimmage chatter was the basic problem--the Homeboys just didn't have the power play.

And, power is the only fact of life the Gnomes of Beijing respect. If you ain't got the juice, you can't stay on the field with the Gnomes. This is a back-to-basics reality which the Obama Homeboys now have to contemplate as they lick the wounds of an all too evident defeat.

The totally scripted, quite stilted, even stylized post-game press conference (without questions) showed that the Captain of the Homeboys understood how badly the game had ended--and been played. This press affair was at a complete variance with the one held by the victorious American capo of the Clinton Stargazers back in 1998.

The upbeat, even ebullient President Clinton, flush with the transitory triumph of the moment, welcomed questions regarding the dangers of open trade with China. In those palmy days of early season play, Mr Clinton poo-poohed the trade deficit with China and minimized the extent of the US-China trade. (Concerning the latter he pointed out that American trade with China was a mere fraction of our trade with Mexico.)

The Geek remembers the sour thought that crossed his usually light and sweet mind, "Yeah, partner--but for how long?"

In this piece of solid negativity the Geek was guided by a memory from thirty more or less years earlier. He was flying over San Francisco's harbor and noticed what looked like acres of identical small Japanese cars parked at dockside. Musing out loud on the fields of rice burners down below, the guy in the next seat set the Geek's thinking straight.

"All those cars down there," a firm thumb with a well trimmed nail gestured in front of the Geek's nose in a general purpose outside-the-airplane way. "They got off the boat a couple of months ago. Customs wouldn't pass them. Don't meet some new federal safety standard or air pollution thing."

The Geek merely nodded as the plane leveled off on its final approach.

"We won't be seeing them again, I'll bet," the guy in the next seat opined.

"Don't bet the ranch on that, bucko." The Geek kept his thoughts to himself. But, he was firmly convinced on the basis of having lived and worked one place or another in Asia for most of the past ten years that the Japanese imports would be back--in full force. Asians learn quickly, and from their mistakes even more quickly.

Later years taught the Geek one additional point. Asians learn most rapidly and completely from the mistakes of others. So, back when President Clinton was singing hosannas onto free, open trade with China and what a great benefit this would be to all Americans as well as the Chinese, the Geek was not willing to sing along with Bill.

While open, "free" trade may have benefited many American consumers somewhat in the very short range, this benefit has been purchased at great cost. Even the benefits which have accrued to major purchasers of Chinese made items such as Walmart will eventually find the costs to the context which created and nurtured them--the United States including its ability to operate freely in the diplomatic context--will outweigh the bottom line successes.

The real winner in this game of open, "free" trade has been China. Not the American corporations, not the Chinese billionaires, not the Chinese workers, none of these has won to the degree attained by the Gnomes of Beijing.

The speed, decisiveness, and totality with which the Gnomes of Beijing cleaned the collective clocks of Obama and his Homeboys were underscored by the soft, soothing mood music played later by Chinese Prime Minister Wen on a matter of trade--specifically the enormous imbalance which exists. His words, as the president must know, were both moot and self-serving.

On the real issues, on Iran, on the value of the yuan, on the growth of China's offensively oriented military forces, there was no movement toward the US position by the Gnomes throughout the many hours of meetings including the one-on-one's with the Chinese president. The Homeboys were, to put it bluntly, dissed.

China will continue its tilt toward Tehran having made the rational decision that the US cannot live without China's continued cooperation on the huge American debt it holds--a trillion bucks and rising. The Gnomes calculated that Obama and the Homeboys now lacked the juice that Clinton had a decade earlier.

Beijing had, it is evident, learned much from our mistakes. The biggest mistake of all from which the Gnomes have learned and profited the most is that of opening our trade door to them without any of the necessary safeguards.

Clinton and his successor, W. Bush, apparently were seduced by the ideology that "free" trade makes for good and permanent friends. They and their fellow ideologues (and the profit at any cost crowd such as Walmart) were wrong. Dead wrong. And, now we will have to live (or die) with the consequences.

As the Geek has posted many times before, buying Chinese origin products whether at Walmart or anywhere else under the conditions which have prevailed since President Clinton embarked on the ill-advised and very poorly thought through policy of "globalization" is trading with the enemy. No mistake must be made about it--China is the enemy. More than Russia today or even the Soviet Union of yore, China is and will continue to be an enemy of the US.

The status of enemy is inherent to the very long standing belief in China of its privileged and unique existence as the "Central Empire." Not the "Middle Kingdom" as the phrase is normally and incorrectly rendered in English--but the "Central Empire." The Big Enchilada. The Honcho Empire.

For a long while after Mao's triumph the Chinese lacked the means to realize its ambitions. Now thanks to "gobalization," thanks to Bill Clinton, thanks to W. Bush, thanks to ideology and the drive for profit without any regard for long term costs, thanks to the American desire to acquire more for less, the Chinese have both the will and the capacity to act without much heed to the US desires and needs anywhere in the world. More than ever, the old saying of the cartoon character Pogo is accurate, "We have met the enemy and he is us."

Obama and the Homeboys will put the best possible gloss on the defeat in Beijing. They have no choice. But, We the People can hope that somewhere, someone, somehow, is looking at the loss for lessons.

Lessons on how we can still claw our way back from the looming verge of second class status, of dancing in the Beijing end zone.