re: "China's Century? Not if We Don't Give It Away"

DiploMad at The DiploMad 2.0 (" Wracked with angst over the fate of our beloved and horribly misgoverned Republic, the DiploMad returns to do battle on the world wide web, swearing death to political correctness, and pulling no punches. ") deflated the myth of rising China.

Money quote(s):

"The 21st will prove "China's century" only if we destroy ourselves; but, if we do, odds are we're taking China with us--and the Chinese rulers know it (more to follow).

I love Chinese history; been to China several times; and like and respect the Chinese people--they work hard, they like Americans, and want to study and live in America. I have dealt with China's very slick, tough, and well-trained diplomats. That said, I have found it impressive over the years to see how China has transformed itself from a poor, brutal authoritarian police state into a poor, brutal, authoritarian police state with large foreign currency reserves. Sorry, but shoddily-built skyscrapers, and streets clogged with Fords, BMWs, Lexus, and Buicks, and lined with luxury stores and restaurants cannot hide the hard facts."

CAA is nothing like an old (or new) China "hand." Never been there, don't know the language.

That being said, anybody in foreign affairs who doesn't try to know at least a little bit about China ought to find a new line of work.

China, in some ways, is like one of those banks or auto companies that's "too big to fail." Until it does. And when it does, it does so in a very big way.

"I saw the repression at work in a visit to Tibet which escaped the control of our handlers. Even outside Tibet the legal system, to put it mildly, remains opaque, capricious, subject to political manipulation, and harsh. Avoid Chinese cops--who seem to be everywhere--and courts. For all the vaunted economic progress, control of the legal-political system remains with an unelected and corrupt Communist Party cadre. These rulers have agreed among themselves that not one will have the total power once wielded so disastrously by Mao. The top jobs rotate; major decisions are not made solo. Progress? I don't know. We saw a similar development in the USSR after Stalin: how is the USSR doing these days? The people remain cut out. The elite decide what's best, the people must comply--see Confucius. This secretive, stale, corrupt, aloof, and repressive system remains a major hindrance for China's development as a true power. Despite ham-handed attempts to block outside influence, word spreads of ways to live which do not involve fear and blind loyalty. We probably will not see a Chinese 21st century, but we will see a "Chinese Spring," and it could get nasty." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

&

"Thanks to Chinese preference for sons, the one-child dictate means females in China are disappearing: they are being aborted, killed, and given for adoption overseas. This is gendercide, a human rights disaster of major proportions and one almost ignored. Moral issues aside, China is heading for demographic disaster. Marrying age men vastly outnumber women. Among those who can afford it, there is a hunt on for foreign brides. Large groups of young Chinese men charter planes to Indonesia, Malaysia, and elsewhere, and hold "speed dating" sessions at local hotels in the hunt for brides, stoking the anti-Chinese hatred which lies just beneath the surface of many Asian societies."

Demography, for nations, is like biology is for individuals: it is destiny. The mutually reinforcing trends of the one-child policy and selective-sex abortions mean that China will implode before it depopulates.

"China is deeply feared and resented. East Asian leaders would much rather deal with the United States, and are big proponents of an active US military and economic presence in the area. They do not want China (and previously Japan) as the undisputed big gorilla in the region."

Once-upon-a-time, CAA was called upon to write an essay on one of a menu of topics; the one I chose was to consider whether China would, in the next century (remember, I said "once-upon-a-time") become a superpower.

In the course of that essay, I explored what it takes to be a superpower and whether China had the capacity to develop those capabilities. In the end, I concluded that it could and, should it decide to do so, that it would become a superpower in short order after determining that it wished to do so.

Today, I would add the condition that while it could become a superpower, it cannot maintain that status for more than a generation.

"China's banks are a mystery. They are secretive, corrupt, and work closely with the Party and the government. China pursues a policy which will be coming to the end of its rope soon, that of keeping their currency artificially low to keep exports cheap and try to keep the job creation machine churning. The central bank, which holds the largest foreign currency reserves in the world, must come up with ways ("sterilization") to sop up the currency generated in China by the influx of foreign currency to prevent inflation and prevent the Chinese currency from appreciating against other major currencies. This involves forcing the banks to keep an ever increasing reserve, and forcing them to buy low or no yield government bonds. I am no expert, but the ones whom I know wonder how long that can continue. The experts ignore another aspect to this: the overseas political side of it. China's trading partners, the US and Europe most notably, are reaching the end of their patience with China's currency manipulations. A trade war is not inconceivable; China would have the most to lose."

&

"China will have as much power and influence as we let them have. China's future as a superpower will be decided in Washington, not in Beijing. Under the Communists, China has not proven an inventive or innovative society; their technological progress is bought, borrowed, copied, or stolen. The USSR tried that, too. They offer no compelling alternative vision to the West's prosperity andfreedom. They can try to become a military bully, but that will go only so far in their very complicated neighborhood and with the serious structural and resource weaknesses they suffer."

4/2

re: "China and Russia: Nothing to Worry About Here. Just Keep Whistling... "

The Conservative Wahoo at Information Dissemination ("The Intersection of Maritime Strategy and Strategic Communications") provided a stellar example of an alternate futures study.

Money quote(s):

"One of the reasons the military (and the commercial world) deal in alternative futures studies is the value that they provide in forecasting potential future events--events which in many cases, had been proceeded by a series of events that portended their arrival. These "signpost" events are then cataloged and monitored, for if more and more of the signposts line up, the event then grows more likely to occur."

CAA has some experience with this, having read a few of these and helped to write and edit one once. They're a very clever and hopefully useful product which combine the best of intelligence research and analysis tools and methodologies into something that should intellectually engage the reader.

"One of the things we speculated on in our work was a condominium of power between Russia and China, and for some reason, it was one of the most criticized portions of the piece (among those seeking to make thoughtful comments). Shortly after we published the paper, just such a "signpost event" occurred when I linked to a coordination of effort between the Chinese and the Russians with respect to missile defense."

This is not so crazy an idea, given that Russia (under its Soviet incarnation) and China were once closely (more-or-less) allied as major components in what was then thought of as "monolithic communism."

(Signpost or milestone events are intended to be clearly observable developments which indicate that a certain trend towards an alternate future is unfolding.)

"(A)nother signpost event (courtesy of a Galrahn Tweet): China and Russia are going to stage a naval exercise in the Yellow Sea in April. Russia plans to send 10 ships to participate. This of course, will occur in a body of water that the Chinese have increasingly indicated they wish we would not visit.

Have the two nations exercised jointly in the past? Yes they have."

There's already something of a framework for Russian-Chinese codominium already in existance, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which has been considered in alternate futures scenarios in the past (see p. 7, "World Without the West").

4/1

re: "The ideologue’s fairy tale"

Karl at Patterico's Pontifications ("Harangues that Just Make Sense") considered election strategies for 2012.

Money quote(s):

"(T)he fact that the 7%-10% of voters who end up deciding elections are almost by definition not swayed by ideology does not lessen the importance of making the case for smaller government, economic freedom and personal responsibility."

The unstated (and mostly correct) assumption that the remaining 90+% of voters split evenly (more-or-less) between each of the two major candidates.

Most election years, that's true, regardless of whether those voters self- identify as Democrats or Republicans, liberals or conservatives, moderates or independents.

In other election years, one candidate (or party platform) is simply so discredited or another is simply so overwhelmingly popular, that this breaks down into a landslide. Wooing of "independents" in those years is unnecessary; they're self-wooed.

"(O)ne of the fundamental cliches of the progressive left is pragmatism, i.e., that they are simply doing “what works.” It is also one of the progressive left’s fundamental falsehoods.

The past century has been one in which progressives have put forth the idea that Soviet communism is what works, that Eurofascism is what works, that Maoism is what works, and that Eurosocialism is what works. The actual history of the past century is one in which Eurofascism was defeated in WWII, Soviet communism was defeated in the Cold War, Maoism has degenerated into a fascism and crony capitalism that only Tom Friedman finds attractive, and Eurosocialism is taking its own road to the dustbin of history."

5/6

re: "Useful Idiots, Part II"

MikeM at Confederate Yankee ("Because liberalism is a persistent vegetative state.") knows a Marxist mob when he sees one (or more).

Money quote(s):

"There are many parallels between the rebels without a clue of the 60s and these equally clueless children of privilege, including no understanding of the system they wish to overthrow or the horrors unleashed should they be successful.

As history has revealed, the protestors of the 60s really were "useful idiots," a derogatory term used by Marxists for their lackeys in democratic nations working toward the destruction of their own freedoms."

The protesters of the 60s are now in their 60s (and 70s) themselves, at the very lingering peak of their political and academic careers. And still misunderstand their earlier (and continuing) roles as dupes.

"For any member of Congress, or the President, circa 1965 to utter support for Marxist protesters would have been unimaginable."

It's acceptable today because Marxists have re-branded themselves as Progressives.

"Marxists care nothing for "the people," who are merely an abstraction, useful only in their temporary, situational utility to the state. Marxist leaders and their states have no conscience, recognize no limits on their power, and if history is any judge, inflict upon 'the people" terrible suffering such that it eventually destroy the very state they claim must be immortal, for Marxist theory can never be wrong, it can never be falsified even as the state crumbles around their ears.

Marxism is utterly incompatible with democracy. When these world views conflict, one must give way, which in our democracy causes Marxists to settle for varying degrees of Socialism just as leftist Bill Clinton was forced to settle for centrist policies."

In practise, Marxism is all about gaining, and maintaining, power. It's not about liberating anyone.

""The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

What, such Americans wonder, would be sufficient cause for rebellion? What would cause Americans to rise against the federal government?"

Disquieting questions, to be sure. But thinking-the-unthinkable is sometimes part of the job discription.

"(H)ow can those contemplating our foundational principles be radical? Our Founders well understood that freedom, once gained, is not eternally secured. They knew that the threat of armed conflict to regain freedom lost would always be present. They knew that it would once again become necessary to preserve liberty and to secure the inalienable rights of men, among them, life, liberty and property.

Marxists recognize and honor no such rights. They admit only to state-bestowed privileges which may be altered or revoked without notice or concern for the welfare, health or the very lives of "the people," they rhetorically claim to love and represent.

Here are the seeds of Revolution, but not the safe, secure Revolution imagined by the pampered children of privilege. Weak, unschooled mentally and physically in the arts of survival, they would be among the first to perish in the kind of conditions they foolishly seek to create. What might be the triggers of the real kind of Revolution the Founders foresaw?
Colonial Americans were far from united on the specific usurpations, or their degree, which might spur them to armed conflict against their Government. So it is today. Marxists recognize only that Revolution which brings them to power and which maintains it. American patriots seek that bright line, that trigger, hoping it is never necessary to cross it."

Mr. McDaniel expounded on some very predictable results from current policy objectives that could prove catastrophic. Each of which alone could prove sufficiently antagonistic to the American way of life that it would suffice to inspire rebellion.

"(T)the rebels without a clue occupying Wall Street foolishly seek to implement policies that will inevitably unleash forces they are utterly unprepared to resist and which they will not survive.

Am I advocating armed rebellion? Certainly not, but even as staunch a liberal as Hubert H. Humphrey understood these issues:

"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be carefully used and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of the citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government and one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible." "

10/10

re: "Whittaker Chambers, Communism, and Islam (Edited & Updated)"

Andrew at Andrew Bostom ("Uncreated, Uncreative Words") had a great essay you should read.

re: "Burning Food"

Dr. Jerry Pournelle at Chaos Manor ("The Original Blog *") examines an absurdity of our time.

Money quote(s):

" “We have to move away from the thinking that producing an energy
crop doesn’t compete with food. It almost inevitably does.” "

"It is important to understand that this is true. Famine threatens the Arab world as food prices rise. The Chinese are now wealthy enough to outbid most of the world for wheat, which is literally the staff of life for much of the Near East; and the Chinese people are getting used to having a variety of foods. You will note there are no riots in China. The Party system is pretty effective there, and the fires of freedom burn strongest among persecuted minorities who are pretty well doomed. I don't claim to be an expert on the Chinese Party System of government, but it appears to have become quite effective, even in this era of near-universal communications. Arthur Koestler told us that a sufficient condition for the end of totalitarian government was the free exchange of ideas, and he may well have been right: there are few totalitarian systems now. That does not mean the end of tyranny; it does mean the end of systems that insist you believe in what they want you to believe.

Even in the 1980's there were few true Communists in the USSR, even though everyone had to pretend to believe in it. It was the official doctrine, and Suslov, "the last Communist", had been able to use the official doctrine to bring about regime change. The USSR could not withstand the pressures put on the system, and the free exchange of ideas within the system undermined the basis of legitimacy of the regime. There is no such pretense of the truth of Communism in China.

The question in North Africa and the Middle East is just what is the basis of legitimacy for government? It is different in different places.

But the threat of famine menaces them all. Some are rich enough to outbid China for food. Some will be able to substitute corn -- maize, mealies, polenta -- provided that is available; but the more corn we turn into alcohol to burn as fuel the higher its price will go. I do not see that this is well understood by the policy wonks in Washington." (Bold type added for emphasis. - CAA.)

Let me say what Dr. Pournelle leaves unsaid.

As Americans subsidize the use of ethanol, this artificially raises the price of corn, which is used to make ethanol. As the price of corn rises, more of our agricultural capacity is used, or diverted, to grow corn and so less of our agriculturally productive land is used to produce other foodstuffs.

As the burning of food causes food prices to rise internationally (as they're already doing), China has enough of our monetary green stuff to continue to buy whatever they need on the world market. This is going to price corn and other grains out of the reach of poorer countries leading, in the medium term, to food riots, improverishment, revolutions, famine, and death.

re: "Islam, Is It like the others?"

DiploMad at The DiploMad 2.0 ("Wracked with angst over the fate of our beloved Republic, now in the hands of Morons who (mis)govern it, the DiploMad has returned to do battle on the world wide web, swearing death to political correctness, and pulling no punches.") takes us around the bases on the subject of Islam (for those who haven't been paying attention since 2001) (or 1998) (or 1993).

Money quote(s):

"We, however, must ask, is our commitment to freedom, to the Constitution and its Bill of Rights a suicide pact? What do we do when faced with powerful organizations here at home that don't believe in freedom? Organizations motivated by hatred precisely for those freedoms and the practice of tolerance? Organizations that openly seek to use our freedoms to destroy them?

During the Cold War we faced such a foe, Soviet Communism. We adopted common sense measures at home to limit the ability of Communists to undermine our nation. Communists, for example, could not hold certain sensitive jobs; they were denied security clearances; the CPUSA was treated as the agent of a hostile foreign power and was subject to penetration and surveillance by the FBI. Foreign Communists were ineligible for visas to the US or for citizenship. Did we infringe on the freedom of Communists? Yes, no doubt. Given, however, what we all should now know about the extent of Soviet espionage against the USA, and the role that the CPUSA played in efforts to undermine America, those measures seem eminently reasonable. We have had similar restrictions on Fascists, Nazis, and KKK members. All infringements, all justifiable."

This is one of those historically proven facts, well known in literate circles, that tends to cause cognitive dissonance among those indoctrinated to see no enemies on the Left, to believe Sen. McCarthy was a wrong-headed monster, to believe Alger Hiss (and the Rosenbergs) were innocent.

All of which was proven, again and again, to be counterfactual; i.e., lies and untruths.

Google "venona papers" or "mitrokhin archive" if these assertions trouble you.

"Those of us who have served in Muslim states know that when we go to those countries we must respect their culture -- OK, fine. But it turns out that when they come to our country, we also have to respect their culture -- or at least the Disney version they peddle. As I have said on many occasions, try to build a church or a synagogue in Saudi Arabia, not possible; try to prevent Muslims from building a mosque in your home town, not possible. We all, especially those of us in government, have to recite the mantra of "Islam is a religion of tolerance and peace.""

A long time ago, before becoming a diplomat, I had a very interesting interview with an officer and a gentleman whose task that day was to evaluate me for "a position of trust and responsibility with the U.S. Government." Actually, it wasn't anything to do with my security clearance (for those of you who recognize the phrasing) but everything to do with whether I was fit or suitable to lie, cheat, and steal for my country.

(As some of our special operators will tell you, "if you ain't cheatin', you ain't tryin'.)

To shorten an overlong story, I was able to convince the gentleman that, despite my Eagle Scout background, I was willing to do what was necessary on behalf of my country, to do very un-nice things to un-nice people.

Fast forwarding, I recently found myself getting into a semi-public debate about whether American diplomats should tell lies. One party (who was not a diplomat) assumed I was accusing a fellow diplomat, who was our mutual acquaintance, of being a liar. Au contraire.

The mutual acquaintance, a senior FSO for whom I have boundless admiration, is someone in whose word I would place great confidence. On the other hand, I also understand the truth in the saying "A diplomat is an honest man sent abroad to lie for his country."

Pres. Bush (#43) understood (even if he never articulated it particularly well), that getting into an existential struggle with a world civilization a la Huntington, wasn't a particularly good idea.

It's still not a very good idea, but it may be one which we are unable to finally avoid.

So I'm not all that troubled by having to say the mantra. (I'm more troubled by people who know me thinking I'm stupid enough to believe it.)

"We are at war with a totalitarianism as much as we were with Communism and Fascism. It's going to be a long, long war, one in which we have to inflict repeated defeats on the Islamists"

"The Soviet Empire in practice was a social, economic and human disaster by just about any measure you care to use. Islam, likewise, as it is practiced in the modern world has produced some of the most retrograde, repressive, and violent regimes and organizations in existence. Nearly all Muslims might not be terrorists, but nearly all terrorists are Muslims. And they draw their inspiration from somewhere." (Bold type added for emphasis, primarily because this can't be said too often. - CAA)

&

"Bottom line: Do we have the right and obligation to defend ourselves against a brutal and totalitarian ideology, or do we have to put up with it because it has the label "religion?""

re: "Threats and Security"

Dr. Jerry Pournelle at Chaos Manor ("The Original Blog *") explains an aspect of asymmetrical warfare.

Money quote(s):

"Modern warfare often incorporates a form of jiu jitsu, the martial art that causes the opponent to use his strength against himself. Clearly al Qaeda is ahead on points in this conflict: they have taken casualties and sustained high costs and losses, but they have caused us to expend far more blood and treasure than they have."

&

"(T)he United States has people better at strategic planning than this. We have people who know something of jiu jitsu -- we did, after all, win the Cold War despite many communist sympathizers among the leading intellectuals in the US -- but they do not seem to have a great deal of influence now."

The good news is, there are still quite a few of us old Cold Warriors still on the payroll, and we know where lots of the (still living) rest can be found.

And, if all else fails, we have an entire upcoming generation of military leadership, blooded in Iraq and Afghanistan, who are absolutely itching to solve this problem.

re: "Criminal ideologies"

Col. B. Bunny at Eternity Road ("Freedom Commandos -- and there is no finer species") discussed some of America's existential threats.

Money quote(s):

"We didn’t ban the Communist party, but we should have. Freedom of Religion is absolute, but it does exist on the assumption that the religion in question is not a criminal ideology dedicated to the destruction of the United States. And that is exactly what Islam, like Nazism or Communism is.

Freedom of Religion was meant to protect religious freedom, not protect religious terrorism."

"The solicitude of the Soviet Union for greater voter registration and equality of educational opportunity here apparently motivated it to expend large sums of money inside our borders. To downplay their altruism, those crazy guys used Armand “the Bag Man” Hammer to transfer those sums secretly to the Communist Party of the US.A. (Note that this is a fact one mentioned publicly at great personal peril when Mr. Hammer was still alive.) Too, that they were a bunch of murderous thugs hostile to all that America stands for was something that they thought Americans in their parochial view of things would not appreciate."

"The idea that domestic communists weren’t committed to the overthrow of the U.S. is ridiculous now and was then. To call yourself a communist at any time is to associate yourself with an ideology of dictatorship, subjugation, summary execution, and judicial murder—the reality of every communist regime that ever was. No amount of naivete or willful blindness can excuse that association. To pretend that communism was something benign and “progressive” was an exercise in protective coloration."

&

"Think death for apostasy, shariah supplanting the Constitution, rule by ignorant priests, male supremacy, subjugation of women, implacable hostility to rational thought, war against and subjugation of infidels everywhere, destruction of Christian churches and the Christian religion itself, and execution of infidels unwilling to live as dhimmis in their own land, just to name a few things off the top of my head.

So, yes. Criminal ideologies.

Best obliterated, expelled, or quarantined."

AP - Cuba protests US visa denial

AP

Cuba protests US visa denial

By EDITH M. LEDERER (AP) – 1 day ago

UNITED NATIONS — Cuba accused the Obama administration of following in the footsteps of the Bush administration and violating U.S. law by denying a visa to the wife of a convicted intelligence agent for the communist nation.

Read the whole article here.

JO - China to spend billions on friends like Jamaica. VP's visit was only Caribbean stop.

Jamaica Observer



China to spend billions on friends like Jamaica


VP's visit was only Caribbean stop


BY KIMONE THOMPSON Senior Reporter Special Coverage Unit thompsonk@jamaicaobserver.com


Sunday, March 01, 2009


CHINA, once among the least liked countries by the West, is rapidly becoming best friends, at least of the Latin America and Caribbean (LAC) region. And for several good reasons.
GOLDING... signs seven bilateral agreements totalling US$138 million
Not the least of these is the hefty billion-dollar loan and aid packages which Chinese vice-president, Xi Jinping said his country would unveil over the next couple of weeks in several countries in the region.

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"Xi Jinping was greeted with open arms by Jamaican officials just over a week ago when he arrived here after a first stop in Mexico on a six-country tour which also included Brazil, Colombia, Venezuela and Malta, off the Italian coast."

"While here, Xi Jinping and Jamaican Prime Minister Bruce Golding signed seven bilateral agreements totalling US$138 million (J$12 billion) on areas including trade, agriculture, infrastructural development, education and culture."

&

"By friends, China means those who subscribe to the principles of peaceful co-existence between communist and capitalist states, as well as those who embrace the One China policy which bats for the reunification of mainland China and Taiwan. By extension, those who support the unification must not have official ties with Taiwan."

JG - Obama's Caribbean challenge - How will new US president deal with Jamaica and the region?

Inauguration Day news:

Jamaica Gleaner

Obama's Caribbean challenge - How will new US president deal with Jamaica and the region?


Published: Sunday January 18, 2009

Arthur Hall, Senior Staff Reporter


WITH THE clock racing towards the inauguration of the 44th president of the United States (US), Jamaicans and others around the Caribbean are still looking at the possible impact of America's first African-American leader on the region.

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"And while it is widely accepted that the election of Barack Obama will not lead to an open bag of goodies across the region, the fire continues to burn that the Caribbean will make it on to the radar of the new president."

&

"It is widely accepted that US policy towards Jamaica and the wider Caribbean has fluctuated between disinterest and obsession over the years.

The policy has been based on a collection of reasons, including security (protecting its borders), ideology (keeping out communism), politics and economics.

Over the last eight years, outgoing president George W. Bush has emphasised all of the above, providing millions of dollars for drug interdiction, interfering in Haiti's domestic politics, maintaining the embargo on Cuba while paying little regard to the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas.

Now it is Obama's time to bat, but officials of the US State Department have already made it clear that there will be no major change in policy."