Charles Krauthammer: After al Qaeda [China-led anti-American block ]

TownHall ^ | January 21, 2005 | Charles Krauthammer

[Tolik]

Where are we? At this midpoint of the Bush administration, engaged as we are in conflict throughout the world, are we winning?

The great democratic crusade undertaken by this administration is going far better than most observers will admit. That's the good news. The bad news is a development more troubling than most observers recognize: signs of the emergence, for the first time since the fall of the Soviet empire, of an anti-American bloc anchored by Great Powers.

[Dutchgirl]

China's newfound prosperity...

I remember reading a while back about the number of Chinese now able to afford cars and how there is no infrastructure to support this -- they lack everything from roads to gas stations.

What do you think of Russia becoming a major supplier of petroleum to China? And of the Chinese embracing the twenty first century sacred cow - the private automobile?

Once again it seems as though Pakistan is going to be a key player. Kerry's questioning of Condi on a subject she refused to address in an open session. Kerry did everything but turn to the cameras and say directly to our enemies, "Please, for the sake of the Democratic Party- take out Musharaf so I can look like a statesman and run again in 08".

[Southack]

Same ole, same ole. China will continue to make some moves that are favorable to the U.S. (e.g. cars, contracts, capitalism), and that are unfavorable (e.g. threatening Taiwan, Iranian oil, etc.).

China simply has not *yet* chosen sides in the new power struggle/war(s).

You could exclude information from a debate and make the case that China is either our inevitable ally or certain foe, in fact.

But it is simply too early to tell. China could turn out to be *either* friend or foe; she simply hasn't decided yet.

[Southack]

"Once again it seems as though Pakistan is going to be a key player. Kerry's questioning of Condi on a subject she refused to address in an open session. Kerry did everything but turn to the cameras and say directly to our enemies, "Please, for the sake of the Democratic Party- take out Musharaf so I can look like a statesman and run again in 08"."

Senator Kerry and most Democrats are puerile. There are good reasons why such intellectual children are not in chrage of the world's economic, social, and military super-power.

Now, Pakistan plays a role in the current global power struggle, but it is not central. Pakistan has had elections before; it will have them again. Pakistan has embraced technology, education, and capitalism before; it can embrace them again.

For his part, Musharaff is even sharper than the old Assad, Sr. of Syria...but Musharaff has chosen our side, and that will buy Pakistan all the time that it needs to get back to democratic elections (lamentations from children like Senator Kerry aside).

[Shermy]

China in turn is developing relationships with such virulently anti-American rogue states as Iran.

Big deal. They need oil too. So is France and the EU.

We have a closer relationship to the virulently anti-american state of Saudi Arabia.

[Pagey]

CK BUMP!

[Tolik]

Very interesting, but I see (respectively of course) some holes.

Multiple interests within the West may coincide even for such bitter opponents as USA and France. They did coincide in Ukraine. Colin Powell language was uncharasteistically sharp in denouncing the troubled elections. His position was clearly one sided. EU position was also uncharacteristically clear.

Both candidates in Ukrainian election campaigned for their exit from Iraq. There was no choice for us in-between pro- and anti- war in Iraq candidate. Both were anti.

Germany energy would come through anybody's Ukraine. Its no issue. Only Osama type candidate would cut the pipeline. Otherwise: Russia wants to sell, Ukraine to transmit, and EU to receive.

[Tolik]

China loves to play political games. I am surprised they don't dominate chess for whatever reason.

They will exterminate their internal Muslims, even peaceful, but will support any external Islamic terrorist, as long as they think the terror will benefit them.

I completely agree that they will continue their low key behavior, measuring and weighing our every move. Our MSM may be clueless about the message of strength Bush sends out, but Chinese will read him just fine.

[GOP_1900AD]

Old World great powers have been hoping that we would crash and burn ever since 1789. Joke 'em if they can't take a ____!

[GOP_1900AD]

Big stick baby! :=)

[GOP_1900AD]

We need to plan to deal with both. It's a tough row to hoe.

[GOP_1900AD]

When I saw the recent photo of the girls saluting, clearly inspired by their new heros, the USN, I shed a tear of joy. Indonesia are once again in play as a potential US ally. Bring back SEATO, for cryin' out loud!

[GOP_1900AD]

RE: at least some people are starting to understand China, that they are an enemy of the US.

I would rephrase that as "at least some people are starting to understand the Chinese Communist Party, and their totalitarian structures, that they are an enemy of the US and good people all over the world."

[rbmillerjr]

"In other words, China has not yet made its decision on which side it will finally choose."

I would contend that China has decided and it's policies from the Korean War onward have proven that.

China is diametrically opposed to anything American and free, it is in their nature. Also, Krauthammer is right on with his thesis of how China is using WTO and capitalist mechanism to gain financial affluence and gain leverage over capitalist countries.

Beware of China, now and in the future.

[GOP_1900AD]

Chinese business people, sort of a class of "rehabilitated kulaks" are being allowed to interact with Western businesses, in order to channel money in the PRC. Most of them were nobodies (a few princelings notwithstanding) prior to the onset of Deng Xiao Ping thought, which is the PRC's version of the NEP. Meanwhile, the ruling structures of the CCP and the PLA, continue to regard the US as enemy number one and the West as inferior to the Middle Kingdom, given its reputed "Mandate of Heaven." Once the cash infusions and direct foreign investment have allowed the PRC to fully develop her autobahns, blue water navy, and full strategic military capability, then the usefulness of these "sinic kulaks" will have been spent. At that time, the mask can be shed, and master plans revealed.

[Southack]

"Once the cash infusions and direct foreign investment have allowed the PRC to fully develop her autobahns, blue water navy, and full strategic military capability, then the usefulness of these "sinic kulaks" will have been spent. At that time, the mask can be shed, and master plans revealed."

That's called riding the tiger into battle...i.e. Communist bigwigs betting that China can tame the capitalists rather than become an entire nation of capitalists.

...And in Chinese lore, whoever rides the tiger gets eaten (sometimes before or without defeating their foe, other times after).

[GOP_1900AD]

Certainly no one can predict the outcome. But my guidance would be to plan for the worst - a resurgence of aggressive Stalinism once the economy there reaches a certain level. I mentioned up above trying to get SEATO going again, for example. Or other things along those lines.

[Southack]

"I would contend that China has decided and it's policies from the Korean War onward have proven that."

As I wrote before you replied, *either* side of this debate could selectively choose some facts and ignore others to make either case; i.e. that China would either side with or against the U.S.

Yet on you go, doing that very thing. Yes, the Chinese went against us in Korea, then turned around and broke with the CCCP (allying with Nixon and even going so far as to unsuccessfully invade Vietnam).

It's simply too early to discern which side China will choose, based upon all of the currently available facts.

She *might* choose to fight us, perhaps even while fighting her own Islamic revolution in her Xinjiang province. Or she might side with her largest customer...who coincidentally is also at war with those same radical Islamics in nations that border China such as Afghanistan.

But it's too early to know for certain. Have an opinion, fine. Make a guess, fine. But she hasn't made a decisive move yet that would confirm her direction.

It's too early to tell.

[GretchenM]

Krauthammer is leading the way as usual. He seems to see around corners.

We need profound men and women who blaze thought trails.

These days, our national security depends on it.

[rbmillerjr]

"*either* side of this debate could selectively choose some facts and ignore others to make either case; i.e. that China would either side with or against the U.S.
Yet on you go, doing that very thing."

Who is ignoring the facts?

You downplay Korea...remember, SKorea and the US were attacked by NKorea first...1 million Korean civilians lost their lives and 50,000 Americans.

Vietnam: HoChiMinh trained with the Chinese PLA and trained thousands of communist cadre. China provided over 35,000 artillery pieces and millions of AKs to the NVietname...helping to kill thousands of Americans.

Iran: billions of dollars of ballistic missile systems sold, destabilizing the Mideast. Crusise missile technology also...there is a huge list of military items I could list here.

Syria: missile systems, 100s of million of dollars, likely more

[Southack]

All of the above is true, yet still ignores the other half of the picture. Yes, China did all of that against us, yet China also invaded Vietnam in the 1970's, broke with the USSR (and had several border wars with them), opened their doors to Nixon, and have expanded their capitalistic market approach and business arrangements with the U.S. and other allied nations.

Moreover, China is currently at war with radical Islamists in their Xinjiang province.

So by selectively choosing from either your above list of facts or from those that I mention above, and leaving out the other half, one could make *either* case that China was inevitably going to side either with or against the U.S.

But such selective statements do us no good. China *could* side against us. That's a very real possibility. China could also side with us. We share a common foe and we have large business ties with each other.

Right now, however, it is too early to tell which way China will break. They could go either way. Neither of their above options for or against us are set in stone.

Yet.

...And the smart money says that China will delay having to pick a side for as long as possible.