Posted on 10/19/2011 7:12:16 PM PDT by neverdem
War with China?
Illusions about the pacifying effects of trade go back more than a century.
‘The two economies [the United States and China] are linked with each other and with the rest of the world in a manner unparalleled in history. This mutual dependence can be an immensely powerful deterrent, in effect a form of mutually assured economic destruction.” So concluded the RAND Corporation in a study released last week.
A hundred years ago Norman Angell came to precisely the same conclusion. In his 1910 book The Great Illusion: A Study of the Relation of Military Power in Nations to Their Economic and Social Advantage, Angell outlined a world where the profitable pursuit of war is impossible because of the interdependence of national economies and the means of modern quick communications. Therefore, war had become “economically and socially futile.” Angell’s book was a tremendous bestseller and fed a widespread turn-of-the-century belief that growing world trade — it was the first era of globalization — would clearly lead to a hundred-year extension of the Pax Britannica.
Angell’s utopian dream of universal peace through greater economic integration took hold in both Britain and the United States, despite the obvious evidence that the world was becoming progressively more dangerous. Growing global tensions were a result of the diplomatic failure of the established powers to make room at the table for two burgeoning new powers — Germany and Japan — that were pushing themselves onto the global stage. Japan, for instance, announced its arrival as a world power by annihilating the Russian navy. In fact it did so a few years before Mr. Angell published The Great Illusion. Germany, in an eerie similarity to what we are witnessing with the rapid growth of the Chinese navy, challenged the continuance of the general peace at the beginning of the 20th century by driving forward with a naval program aimed at contesting Britain’s command of the seas, something Britain naturally viewed as a mortal threat.
In the end, Angell’s theory of “peace through economic integration” was exploded by Europe’s first suicide attempt in 1914. Still, utopian hopes and myths die hard. The dramatic evidence provided by the millions killed in World War I that Angell’s theory was a complete and utter failure did not stop him from releasing a new version of The Great Illusion in 1933, just in time for Hitler’s rise. Another version was published in 1938, on the very eve of World War II. Despite Angell’s unbelievably bad timing and the vacuity of his theories on political economy, he was still awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1933, primarily because of The Great Illusion.
RAND’s study concludes: “We do not believe a China–U.S. military conflict to be probable.” Possibly cognizant of how economic integration has disastrously failed to stop previous conflicts, RAND qualifies its belief in a lasting peace built on overlapping economic interests by stating that its view is based on the judgment that the “United States will retain the capacity to deter behavior that could lead to a clash.” In other words, shared economic interests will guarantee the peace just as long as they are backed up by America’s overwhelming military might.
Granted, a war with China does not appear on the immediate horizon. Unfortunately, there are too many possible flashpoints for the United States to become complacent. A nuclear-armed North Korea could collapse, or it could lash out so as to create a regional apocalypse before its final demise. Either event would draw both the United States and China into an unpredictable dynamic in which having a powerful American military force on hand remains the best guarantee of keeping or rebuilding the peace. Moreover, despite decades of walking a diplomatic tightrope, the Taiwan situation remains unstable and dangerous, as do increasing Sino-Japanese tensions over resource rights, increased military activity in the South China Sea, and a growing strategic rivalry with India.
The rise of new powers always leads to a dangerous time in international politics. It does not necessarily have to lead to violence. For instance, the dominant power of the 19th century, Britain, was able to make room for America’s post–Civil War expansion without a major shooting war between the two. Still, throughout this time Britain maintained an unrivaled military supremacy.
With a little luck and a lot of skill, Chinese and American diplomats will peacefully navigate the predictably treacherous waters ahead. In doing so, however, we must avoid putting too much faith in the chimera of an enduring peace built solely on ever greater economic integration. Economic contacts will, in time, help build the common bonds of trust that will allow disputes to be handled peacefully. In the meantime, it is worth remembering that the Pax Americana was not kept for five decades through our economic integration with the Soviets. It was kept by maintaining a powerful military that forced the Soviets to take a long contemplative pause before engaging in any military action.
— Jim Lacey is professor of strategic studies at the Marine Corps War College. He is the author of the recently released The First Clash and Keep from All Thoughtful Men. The opinions in this article are entirely his own and do not represent those of the Department of Defense or any of its members.
Any one interested in this subject I recommend reading Kissinger’s book “On China”.
Most Americans are totally ignorant about the subject.
The whole point of this piece is stupid. Angell was proven correct. WWI was obviously “economically and socially futile.”
I believe the deterrent effect of trade requires rational actors.
It wasn't an "attempt". It succeeded.
It's just taking a century for the corpse to stop twitching.
I've often asked people why isolation and containment was the correct strategy for dealing with the USSR, but an entirely different strategy is supposedly best for Red China, a strategy of one-sided trade and incredible transfers of American technology that enables China to achieve economic and military growth they could never have achieved on their own.
The fantasy of economic integration, or "interdependence" as a means of assuring peace has been catastrophic in the past and could well be again.
“Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who didn’t.”- Ben Franklin
Germany and Russia were still engaging in trade right up until the time Hitler ordered the invasion to begin. So much for Angell’s foolishness.
We had lots of trade around the time of the Boxer Rebellion too. heh
Integration is like when the Romans hired the foreigners to be their army I suppose.
Norman Angell had an interesting life. Among other things, he worked as a cowboy on a ranch near Bakersfield, Calif. in the early twentieth century. His description in his memoirs of what California was like at the time are fascinating.
Resurgent Communism in Latin America
by Alex Newman, March 16, 2010:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/world-mainmenu-26/south-america-mainmenu-37/3122-resurgent-communism-in-latin-america?tmpl=component&print=1&layout=default&page=
______________________________________________________________
From the Russian News and Information Agency:
July 27, 2006
"'I am determined to expand relations with Russia,' Chavez, known as an outspoken critic of what he calls the United States' unilateralism, told the Russian leader, adding that his determination stemmed from their shared vision of the global order.":
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20060727/51913498.html
______________________________________________________________
From the Sino-Russian Joint Statement of April 23, 1997:
"The two sides [China and Russia] shall, in the spirit of partnership, strive to promote the multipolarization of the world and the establishment of a new international order."
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/HI29Ag01.html
______________________________________________________________
"Joint war games are a logical outcome of the Sino-Russian Friendship and Cooperation Treaty signed in 2001, and reflect the shared worldview and growing economic ties between the two Eastern Hemisphere giants."
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed092605a.cfm
______________________________________________________________
President Obama and Venezuela dictator Hugo
Chavez at the 2009 Summit of the Americas in Trinidad.
Note the "soul bro" handshake. (my caption)
Obama, Chavez shake hands at Americas Summit:
http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2009/04/17/2698451-obama-chavez-shake-hands-at-americas-summit
______________________________________________________________
Russia's Medvedev hails "comrade" Obama
Associated Foreign Press (AFP) ^ | April 2, 2009 | Anna Smolchenko
"Russia's Dmitry Medvedev hailed Barack Obama as "my new comrade" Thursday after their first face-to-face talks"
http://www.france24.com/en/20090402-russias-medvedev-hails-comrade-obama
April 1, 2009:
"Obama, Medvedev pledge new era of relations":
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090401/wl_afp/usrussiadiplomacynuclear_20090401152002
______________________________________________________________
The big difference is that China is basically America’s slave colony. That is what the two nations have effectively created by building their economies in such a way that one country produces cheap products that the other one consumes. The linking of the two currencies at fixed exchange rates or within narrow trading bands ensures that they’ll probably never catch up to our standard of living.
"'We like your president. We want to see him reelected', former Chinese intelligence chief General Ji Shengde told Chinagate bagman Johnny Chung. Indeed, Chinese intelligence organized a massive covert operation aimed at tilting the 1996 election Clinton’s way."
The Idiot's Guide to Chinagate
By Richard Poe
May 26, 2003
CHINA WILL LIKELY replace the USA as world leader, said Bill Clinton in a recent Washington Post interview. It is just a matter of time. Clinton should know. He has personally done more to build China’s military strength than any man on earth.
Most Americans have heard of the so-called "Chinagate " scandal. Few understand its deadly import, however. Web sites such as "Chinagate for Dummies" and its companion "More Chinagate for Dummies" offer some assistance. Unfortunately, with a combined total of nearly 8,000 words, these two sites – like so many others of the genre – offer more detail than most of us "dummies" can absorb.
For that reason, in the 600 words left in this column, I will try to craft my own "Idiot’s Guide to Chinagate," dedicated to all those busy folks like you and me whose attention span tends to peter out after about 750 words. Here goes.
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, China presented little threat to the United States. Chinese missiles "couldn’t hit the side of a barn," notes Timothy W. Maier of Insight magazine. Few could reach North America and those that made it would likely miss their targets.
Thanks to Bill Clinton, China can now hit any city in the USA, using state-of-the-art, solid-fueled missiles with dead-accurate, computerized guidance systems and multiple warheads.
China probably has suitcase nukes as well. These enable China to strike by proxy – equipping nuclear-armed terrorists to do their dirty work, while the Chinese play innocent. Some intelligence sources claim that China maintains secret stockpiles of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons on U.S. soil, for just such contingencies.
In 1997, Clinton allowed China to take over the Panama Canal. The Chinese company Hutchison Whampoa leased the ports of Cristobal and Balboa, on the east and west openings of the canal respectively, thus controlling access both ways. A public outcry stopped Clinton in 1998 from leasing California’s Long Beach Naval Yard to the Chinese firm COSCO. Even so, China can now strike U.S. targets easily from their bases in Panama, Vancouver and the Bahamas.
How did China catch up so fast? Easy. We sold them all the technology they needed – or handed it over for free. Neither neglect nor carelessness are to blame. Bill Clinton did it on purpose.
As a globalist, Clinton promotes "multipolarity" – the doctrine that no country (such as the USA) should be allowed to gain decisive advantage over others.
To this end, Clinton appointed anti-nuclear activist Hazel O’Leary to head the Department of Energy. O’Leary set to work "leveling the playing field," as she put it, by giving away our nuclear secrets. She declassified 11 million pages of data on U.S. nuclear weapons and loosened up security at weapons labs.
Federal investigators [Cox Report] later concluded that China made off with the "crown jewels" of our nuclear weapons research under Clinton’s open-door policy – probably including design specifications for suitcase nukes. Meanwhile, Clinton and his corporate cronies raked in millions.
In his book The China Threat, Washington Times correspondent Bill Gertz describes how the system worked. Defense contractors eager to sell technology to China poured millions of dollars into Clinton’s campaign. In return, Clinton called off the dogs.
Janet Reno and other counterintelligence officials stood down while Lockheed Martin, Hughes Electronics, Loral Space & Communications and other U.S. companies helped China modernize its nuclear strike force.
"We like your president. We want to see him reelected," former Chinese intelligence chief General Ji Shengde told Chinagate bagman Johnny Chung. Indeed, Chinese intelligence organized a massive covert operation aimed at tilting the 1996 election Clinton’s way.
Clinton’s top campaign contributors for 1992 were Chinese agents; his top donors in 1996 were U.S. defense contractors selling missile technology to China.
Clinton recieved funding directly from known or suspected Chinese intelligence agents, among them James and Mochtar Riady who own the Indonesian Lippo Group; John Huang; Charlie Trie; Ted Sioeng; Maria Hsia; Wang Jun and others.
Commerce Secretary Ron Brown served as Clinton’s front man in many Chinagate deals. When investigators began probing Brown’s Lippo Group and Chinagate connections, Brown died suddenly in a suspicious April 1996 plane crash.
Needless to say, China does not share Clinton’s enthusiasm for globalism or multipolarity. The Chinese look out for Number One.
"War [with the United States] is inevitable; we cannot avoid it," said Chinese Defense Minister General Chi Haotian in 2000. "The issue is that the Chinese armed forces must control the initiative in this war." Bill Clinton has given them a good start.
The Idiot's Guide to Chinagate:
http://www.richardpoe.com/column.cgi?story=125
or,
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/26/214938.shtml
(this version hasn't the necessary hyperlinks, but the above doesn't seem to be available any longer)
_________________________________
Related Stories
Richard Poe, "Chinagate: The Third-Way Scandal" (June 3, 1999)
Christopher Ruddy, "Russia and China Prepare for War: Parts I - VIII," NewsMax.com (March 9 -18, 1999)
_____________________________________________________________
From the Sino-Russian Joint Statement of April 23, 1997:
"The two sides [China and Russia] shall, in the spirit of partnership, strive to promote the multipolarization of the world and the establishment of a new international order."
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/HI29Ag01.html
_____________________________________________________________
"As a globalist, [Bill] Clinton promotes "multipolarity" – the doctrine that no country (such as the USA) should be allowed to gain decisive advantage over others."
From a 2003 Washington Post article:
"...a statement [Bill] Clinton made in February 2002, in which he told an audience in Australia, 'This is a unique moment in U.S. history, a brief moment in history, when the U.S. has preeminent military, economic and political power. It won't last forever. This is just a period, a few decades this will last.'
Clinton continued...
'In all probability, we won't be the premier political and economic power we are now' in a few decades, he said, pointing to the growth of China's economy and the growing economic strength of the European Union.
Whether the United States maintains its military supremacy, he said, depends in part on how much those other entities invest in their militaries, and Clinton said working cooperatively is essential to U.S. interests.
But he said he did not want to be misunderstood. 'I never advocated that we not have the strongest military in the world...I don't think a single soul has thought I was advocating scaling back our military.'
Source: Washington Post article from May 2003:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A62253-2003Apr30¬Found=true
or find his remarks here (Talon News):
Clinton Predicts America's Decline:
http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/newswire/nw03/talonnews/0503/newswire-tn-050503d.htm
None of that is really relevant to whether or not the interdependence promotes peace notion is reliable. A great deal of history proves that it is not reliable.
And China is not a slave colony of the US, but a communist nation that has traded its vast number of cheap workers for the manufacturing plants and jobs of the US and other advanced nations. A significant portion of the wealth creation capacity of the US has been exported to China and has not been replaced with anything comparable.
China does not have to achieved the US standard of living on a per capita basis to become a financially and military strong menace to peace around the world.
In the mid-’70s China was still trying to smelt iron ore in backyard smelters. They had little or nothing to trade with the world. It is beyond belief what they have been given, or allowed to buy, or allowed to steal from the US over the past few decades.
And the fact that so many US manufacturing plants have moved to China is another huge technology giveaway of manufacturing techniques and processes. And companies such as GE and Boeing will soon have plants producing more and more aircraft parts in China, knowledge which China will promptly steal and begin utilizing to develop their own aircraft industries.
Related, heard the author interviewed this week:
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/21/opinion/la-oe-navarro-trade-china-20110621
“How China unfairly bests the U.S.”
— Peter Navarro is a business professor at UC Irvine, a CNBC contributor and the coauthor with Greg Autry of “Death by China: Confronting the Dragon - A Global Call to Action.”
(from the link)
well, yes and no. Thanks to WWI, many Eastern European countries got the chance of freedom (or a brief moment of freedom) or they would have been culturally crushed by Russia and Prussia
That was a nice refresher in Clinton’s perfidy.
Ping for a barf alert...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.