 |
|||
|
|
|
 China’s Growing Military Might and American RashnessPosted on Jan 11, 2011Robert Gates’ official visit to Beijing, probably the last before he leaves the office of U.S. secretary of defense, was a frustrating affair, distinguished by China’s reiteration of its warnings that Washington must not sell arms to Taiwan, a demand that the United States has never accepted. The Chinese enlivened Mr. Gates’ visit with a display of their new J-20 fighter, which is claimed to be stealthy and to have other advanced features that put it in the same category as the American F-22, except that the Chinese plane is still in flight development and will not be operational for years—unless the Chinese aerospace industry is a great deal more efficient than the American. Nonetheless, it provided a subject for the defense secretary’s reflection—and gained much attention in the aerospace press. Members of the European Union have been considering an end to or modification of the European refusal to sell arms to China, a ban imposed at the time of the Chinese government’s repression of the Tiananmen Square political protests in 1989. Catherine Ashton, high representative of the EU for foreign affairs and security policy, issued a policy paper in December that described the embargo as “a major impediment for [surely she meant ‘to’] developing stronger EU-China cooperation on foreign policy and security measures.” She recommended discussion to “design a way forward,” a suggestion unpleasing to those Americans who anticipate a Chinese-American struggle to dominate East Asia, which too many do. As I noted in a recent column, even some “realist” political scholars—opponents of the Iraq and Afghanistan interventions—believe that the U.S. must (permanently?) dominate the world’s principal centers of power: East Asia (meaning China), the Middle East extending to South Asia, and Western Europe. European arms sales to China would thus constitute an enlarged challenge to the American position from two of these three centers. The third—the Middle East and Central/South Asia—matters mainly by virtue of its natural resources. The last 10 years of increasingly aggressive American efforts to control this region have seriously backfired in Iraq (now virtually an Iranian satellite) and Afghanistan, and now look very much like they are producing disastrous consequences in Pakistan. (The markets think, or hope, that North American shale oil may take the place of Middle Eastern oil.) This puts the U.S. on the defensive. The National Defense Strategy statements irregularly published during the past two decades have not emphasized national defense per se but the threat of denial of access to some areas—actual or potential political, military or technological obstacles to American forces’ ability to go wherever they want to go, and attack whatever they want to attack, preferably on the other side of the globe, where it is hardest for an opponent to strike back. The strategy statements’ main concern has been that American forces might be barred access to somewhere they are ordered to go in order to attack some potential threat to America’s global position. Advertisement There has for some years been considerable careless talk in Washington about future conflict with China. This is a possibility that has to be taken seriously if the U.S. is committed, as proposed, to military domination of East and Northeastern Asia. The present military situation is the legacy of the Second World War (and the Korean War). The U.S. ended with a big base structure, and because of the postwar Japanese constitutional reform, including a national commitment to pacifism, Washington gave a formal assurance that it would provide Japan with permanent security. This is a serious commitment. However, it could be provided in ways other than by huge Marine bases on Okinawa (which are not specifically dedicated to Japan’s security, but are part of the American global base system), and by U.S. troops and airbases in Japan and South Korea. There are two possible policy courses. The first is an early attempt to obtain multiparty negotiations to establish a joint East Asian security system underwritten by the U.S., China, Japan, Taiwan and Korea (or the Koreas). This is consistent with Chinese, Japanese and American (and for that matter Russian) national interests, even if it does not include final resolution of the Taiwan situation and China’s territorial claims. It could, depending on what it accomplishes, allow, or require, a substantial American redeployment of its forces back to Pacific bases or to the U.S. itself. The question to Americans is whether this is something that their government would accept. The easy but extremely dangerous alternative is drift: to continue the existing arms competition, and the pursuit of existing territorial claims and rivalries. This will provoke China’s insecurities and vulnerabilities, and encourage American rashness. The first way is better. Visit William Pfaff’s website for more on his latest book, “The Irony of Manifest Destiny: The Tragedy of America’s Foreign Policy” (Walker & Co., $25), at www.williampfaff.com. © 2011 Tribune Media Services Inc.  TAGS:
|
Say ‘Hi-Ho!’ as They Strip-Search You
Email
Print
Share
Digg
Facebook
TwitThis
StumbleUpon
Reddit
YahooBuzz
Email
BlinkList
del.icio.us
Fark
Furl
Google
LinkedIn
Mixx
MyShare
NewsVine
Propeller
SphereIt
Technorati
YahooMyWeb
Newsletter 
Become a Fan
Follow Us
Subscribe
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation
Copyright © 2012 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.
By denk, January 13, 2011 at 11:38 pm Link to this comment
supermike
*Example of unrewindable commitments: The United States is committed by LAW to support Taiwan*
u wanna talk law eh ?
Report thispray tell, which international law allows u to
commit extra judicial executions in foreign lands ?
http://tinyurl.com/4caee64
By TAO Walker, January 13, 2011 at 8:09 pm Link to this comment
“SuperMike1661” succinctly sums-up the gangster ethos, alright, and it’s surely starkly on-display in the “global” maximum security CONstruct….his expertise in which is not at issue here.
HokaHey!
Report thisBy SuperMike1661, January 13, 2011 at 7:41 pm Link to this comment
TAO Walker
Yes. Well nonetheless, North East Asia has not been this destabilized since the 1950s. The South Koreans do not like it when the North torpedoes and sinks one of its few frigates, and the Japanese are definitely uncomfortable when nutty Chinese Junk Captains ram their naval craft.
Simply put: you take your allies as you find them.
Report thisBy TAO Walker, January 13, 2011 at 7:23 pm Link to this comment
“SuperMike1661” seems to insist that just because something is CONsistent with the “internal” logic of whatever ‘system’ it’s part-of, that it is, therefore, sane in the organic sense. This Indian suggests that we don’t all, in actual fact, Live in the sort of “jungle” he evidently inhabits. In-fact, nothing and nobody actually Lives there, since its entire operational imperative is to deal death.
Some of us live in a larger Living Arrangement whose defining characteristics are not “dominance,” but harmony, balance, and communion among all of its constituent Kinds. The virtual world-o’-hurt both William Pfaff and “SuperMike1661” are caught in is the fever-dream CONstruct of a disease process that has co-opted and corrupted part of Humanity as instruments of its degradation of Natural Vitality into the various sorts of degenerate “energy” the thing runs on. “Global Security Analysis” is only one among many of its organically insane (but logical and “rational”) characteristic features.
It is common to delusional systems of all kinds that all internally generated formulations are “not “insane,” which is a big part of their seductive ‘charm’....for those in-thrall to “rational”-ization and its “self”-serving “product.”
HokaHey!
Report thisBy SuperMike1661, January 13, 2011 at 3:58 pm Link to this comment
TAO Walker
It is not easy to read your post, but let me start here:
A deeply fundamental tenet of Global Security Analysis is that one’s opponent should be open in his intent so that the opponent’s actions can be predicted with precision. Is this insane? I think not. This is the law of the jungle in which we live.
Now the PRC has several developments underway that it is extremely secretive about… A few aircraft carriers, a dangerous anti-carrier ballistic missile AND a new, very impressive looking stealth fighter… all of which target US capabilities.
This makes the Japanese and Koreans very nervous. North East Asia is a dangerous place, and when the PRC makes it more dangerous by its secretiveness, this not lost on any Strategic Thinkers in the West, in Seoul or in Tokyo.
The PRC is badly fumbling its international game at this time… and no one knows why. Pfaff SHOULD KNOW that the PRC’s unflagging support of North Korea is an absolute prevent of ANY talks about the region. Am I clear?
Report thisBy TAO Walker, January 13, 2011 at 3:40 pm Link to this comment
“SuperMike1661” might nevertheless agree that just being some government’s “official policy” doesn’t rule-out some mandated compulsive behavioral “program” (like “global”-ism) being completely insane….Biologically, anyhow. Whatever “self”-serving motives William Pfaff might have here, “gerard” is on-to something when she characterizes the “world” Pfaff reports-on as essentially “maniac(al)” in its driving CONceits.
Mere “rational”-ity, and the “logical” CONsistency that is its supposed hallmark, has unfortunately no necessary correlation with organically functional sanity….unless its the all too-often all too-easily observable phenomenon that the more of the former at-work, the less of the latter in-play.
HokaHey!
Report thisBy SuperMike1661, January 13, 2011 at 12:08 am Link to this comment
gerard
Pfaff’s posting is NOT the raving of a mad man. This posting is almost exactly the position of the government of the PRC. Pfaff is currying favors. A key problem of the Chinese Communist Party is that it is VERY well funded. Like the political right in the United States, the CCP can mount sophisticated Web-based campaigns including articles like Pfaff’s AND paid support like MEHERE.
You have to watch what happens on the Web very closely. There are Black Posters on Truthdig who support their postings with very expensive quotations from recent Live Television. This is one way to identify BP operators.
Report thisBy gerard, January 12, 2011 at 9:18 pm Link to this comment
If you really stop to think about it, this article sounds like the ravings of a madman. The trick is in not thinking, I guess. But what’s with that attitude, so far as the future of human life is concerned?
Report thisBy TAO Walker, January 12, 2011 at 6:37 pm Link to this comment
What William Pfaff doesn’t say here (probably doesn’t dare say), in his diagnostic description of the “globaL” ‘BIG-PICTURE’, is how even the most institutionally logical and “rational” formulations can be (and very often are) Biologically completely insane.
HokaHey!
Report thisBy frecklefever, January 12, 2011 at 4:54 pm Link to this comment
WITH ALL THE MANY ALLIANCES WE MAKE FOR SECURITY REASONS…IN FACT ASSURES US TO
Report thisBE IN A PERPETUAL STATE OF WAR..WAR GAMES OFF NORTH KOREAS COAST BY AMERICA AND
ITS ALLY SOUTH KOREA..EXACERBATED A SITUATION..AND WAS SO OUT OF DATE… AN EXAMPLE
OF THE RECKLESS CONSEQUENCES AT THE HEART OF THIS MISGUIDED SECURITY
QUEST…GEORGE WASHINGTON WARNED AGAINST FOREIGN ENTANGLEMENTS…FREDERICK THE
GREAT SAID ABOUT THE ART OF WAR…SIMPLIFY..SIMPLIFY….THE BIG THINKERS BEHIND
AMERICAS FOREIGN POLICIES..ARE EDUCATED..BUT UNWISE..WISDOM IS A HIGHER REALM..THE
HIGHEST IS REVEALED KNOWLEDGE..
By SuperMike1661, January 12, 2011 at 3:43 pm Link to this comment
I thought the flaw in Pfaff’s essay was evident. NOBODY in North East Asia WANTS to do a deal with the Chinese. The Koreans and Japanese are presently and rapidly realigning so that they can join with the US in presenting a solid front to the PRC. Expect a huge tripartite security treaty among these three new friends within 3 years.
Example of unrewindable commitments: The United States is committed by LAW to support Taiwan. Until Taiwan finds its own peace with the mainland bullies.. there is no known way for this law to be changed.
As can be seen from the “in your face” attitude that the PLA (the PRC’s dog) showed to Sec. Gates this week, the Chinese are displaying a despotic attitude that needs to be countered.
Also, only in the popular media does the PRC holding of 8% of US debt amount to anything. As the Federal Reserve has done with other large bond entities over the last 18 months, PRC holdings can be wiped off the books by simple money creation.
NO.. the real problem with the PRC is that it appears to be a country with a permanent inferiority complex, and also it fields a slave labor force of 120 million manufacturing workers that is slowly undermining the viability of all other major economies.
Report thisBy MeHere, January 12, 2011 at 2:36 pm Link to this comment
Thank you, W. Pfaff! This is the type of reasoning that should be in the popular
media as we speak but isn’t. Some time from now, if bad things happen, we
will act surprised and simply view China as an aggressor. We have ample
warning from voices like W. Pfaff’s and others who feel that we’re missing a
great opportunity to implement sound relations.
On a different note, if there is anyone to blame for the slavery of Chinese
Report thisworkers, please look at home. US companies didn’t have enough workers to
enslave right here so they went abroad for that. Consumers were delighted and
they never pushed their legislators to impose tariffs and regulations on the
goods coming in. American manufacturing industry has been undermined.
China is the largest foreign holder of US Treasury bonds which helps us carry
our significant budget deficit. After following the brilliant path we took, we
now feel entitled to dictate Chinese policy?
By MeHere, January 12, 2011 at 2:34 pm Link to this comment
Excellent, W. Pfaff! This is the type of reasoning that should be in the popular
media as we speak but isn’t. Some time from now, if bad things happen, we
will act surprised and simply view China as an aggressor. We have ample
warning from voices like W. Pfaff’s and others who feel that we’re missing a
great opportunity to implement sound relations.
On a different note, if there is anyone to blame for the slavery of Chinese
Report thisworkers, please look at home. US companies didn’t have enough workers to
enslave right here so they went abroad for that. Consumers were delighted and
they never pushed their legislators to impose tariffs and regulations on the
goods coming in. American manufacturing industry has been undermined.
China is the largest foreign holder of US Treasury bonds which helps us carry
our significant budget deficit. After following the brilliant path we took, we
now feel entitled to dictate Chinese policy?
By Satish Chandra, January 12, 2011 at 5:56 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Stealth or no-stealth, 5th generation or 4th generation, fighter aircraft are as obsolete for India’s defence as bows and arrows. They can be used against neighbors such as Pakistan and China but the United States is EVERYBODY’S neighbor. It has already invaded and occupied Afghanistan, a part of traditional India and will expand its occupation to the rest of the subcontinent. I am India’s expert in strategic defence and the father of India’s strategic program including the Integrated Guided Missile Development Program. The U.S. invasion of Afghanistan means the coast-to—coast destruction of the U.S. by India; see my blog titled ‘Nuclear Supremacy for India Over U.S.’, which can be found by a Yahoo search with the title, for what India needs to do. Russia and other white countries are U.S. allies. These are the enemies to destroy. All other enemies will be taken care of automatically. Conventional arms are worthless for destroying the United States. Nuclear arms to destroy the United States with a FIRST STRIKE—this is the key—are cheap and easy to produce with technology India already has. All the money earmarked for fighter aircraft etc., and more, must be pumped into research, development and production of missiles able to deliver India’s nuclear warheads—in the thousands—to the continental United States. India’s missile scientists & engineers should have tested such missiles to their full range decades ago—everything else, including short and intermediate range missiles and missile defence, is secondary and tertiary—but have not done that because of prohibitions by India’s C.I.A.-controlled governments. This must be done on a war footing.
Report thisSatish Chandra
By SuperMike1661, January 12, 2011 at 2:38 am Link to this comment
Mr. Pfaff simply misses the key feature of the present confrontation with China: With each year that passes under the current strategy, the West experiences an ever-decreasingly viable Negotiating Position.
No matter what other line of play that The United States decides to execute, it needs to mount a growing campaign against the slavery under which 120 million PRC manufacturing workers labor each day. A very dangerous aspect of China’s current capabilities is that the West CAN NOT compete over the long run with this giant factory called PRC. If we allow the enslaved PRC worker to continue to destroy Western economies, the West’s Negotiating Position will ultimately vanish. This is an urgent matter, and if people like Pfaff continue to ignore it, the game will soon be forfeit.
It is quite disappointing that people like Pfaff continue to miss the critical aspect of a very dangerous situation.
Report thisBy John Iacovelli, January 12, 2011 at 12:38 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Excellent article, but I think the Nicholas Davies article linked to below is necessary to put it in context. The U.S. has been building up its Pacific naval forces like crazy for the last decade, and that is the biggest “fact on the ground” in that
Report thispart of the world right now. It can explain much of the Chinese actions in recent months—the development of anti-aircraft-carrier-missiles, satellite-killers, stealth fighters—all relatively cheap ways to neutralize U.S. advantages gained in the buildup of the Pacific fleet. It appears to me that China’s overall approach is to buy and befriend their way into raw materials markets, and hedge their bet by making sure their military has the tools to break through any possible U.S. sea blockades.
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_6496.shtml