OMNI: US COLD WAR
AGAINST CHINA, ANTHOLOGY#5,
COMPILED BY
DICK BENNETT FOR A CULTURE OF PEACE, JUSTICE, AND ECOLOGY
(#4, May 4, 2021)
CONTENTS: CHINA ANTHOLOGY #5
Threatened War, NEW COLD WAR
Political Conflict
Economic
Technological
Psychological
Media
Peaceful Alternatives
TEXTS
NEW COLD WAR
THREATENED ARMED FORCE
On the
Brink in 2026 - Michael Klare in TomDispatch
|
1:33
AM (9 hours ago) |
|
||
|
|
||||
Michael
Klare's serious warning of a U.S. war on China, with a compelling introduction
by Tom Engelgardt (as he is wont to do).
https://tomdispatch.com/on-the-brink-in-2026/
Michael Klare, An All-American
Path to War? POSTED
ON JULY 13, 2021
The single scariest night of my life may
have been on October 22, 1962, when I thought that all the duck-and-cover moments of
my childhood were coming home to roost. President John F. Kennedy appeared on
national television (and radio) to
warn us all to duck and cover. The Soviet Union, it seemed, had managed to
emplace medium-range nuclear missiles in Cuba that could reach major East coast
cities. He was ordering a naval “quarantine” of the island. As he put it,
“We will not prematurely or unnecessarily risk the costs of worldwide nuclear
war in which even the fruits of victory would be ashes in our mouth, but
neither will we shrink from the risk at any time it must be faced.”
That was the beginning of what came to
be known as the Cuban Missile Crisis. Of course,
I’m here today, so neither New Haven, where I was then a freshman in college,
nor New York, where I grew up, had its Hiroshima moment, nor did anyplace else
in the U.S., Russia, or Cuba. Still, it felt too close for comfort.
Despite all the years of the Cold War
still to come, I never again felt that unforgettable sense that a nuclear war
might break out. But never say never, not on a planet filled with such weaponry, not when
its two major powers, the U.S. and China, are increasingly facing off,
particularly over the island of Taiwan.
Last month, for instance, Admiral Sam
Paparo, commander of the U.S. Pacific fleet, called China a
“pacing threat,” explaining that “I worry about China’s intentions. It doesn’t
make a difference to me whether it is tomorrow, next year, or whether it is in
six years. At Pacific Fleet and Indo-Pacific Command we have a duty to be ready
to respond to threats to U.S. security.” And that “duty,” he added, includes
delivering a fleet “capable of thwarting any effort on the part of the Chinese
to upend that [world] order, to include the unification by force of Taiwan to
the People’s Republic of China.”
Meanwhile, in Army circles, there
is increasing discussion of
the possibility of stationing a U.S. armored brigade combat team as a “tripwire
force” on that very island. That way, should Beijing decide to invade, it would
face U.S. troops from second one. And just as such thinking was emerging
in military circles here, a Chinese publication put out a
“detailed outline of a three-stage surprise attack which could pave the way for
an assault landing on Taiwan.” All of this, of course, was happening as the
Biden administration ramps up its distinctly anti-China-focused foreign policy.
So, welcome to the world TomDispatch regular Michael Klare, founder
of the Committee for a Sane U.S.-China Policy,
considers as he peers into a future in which the Chinese Missile Crisis of 2024
or 2026 is anything but beyond imagining. Tom
On the Brink in 2026
U.S.-China Near-War Status Report
It’s the summer of 2026, five years
after the Biden administration identified the People’s Republic of China as the
principal threat to U.S. security and Congress passed a raft of laws mandating
a society-wide mobilization to ensure permanent U.S. domination of the
Asia-Pacific region. Although major armed conflict between the United States
and China has not yet broken out, numerous crises have erupted in the western
Pacific and the two countries are constantly poised for war. International
diplomacy has largely broken down, with talks over climate change, pandemic
relief, and nuclear nonproliferation at a standstill. For most security
analysts, it’s not a matter of if a U.S.-China war will erupt,
but when.
Does this sound fanciful? Not if you
read the statements coming out of the Department of Defense (DoD) and the upper
ranks of Congress these days.
“China poses the greatest long-term
challenge to the United States and strengthening deterrence against China will
require DoD to work in concert with other instruments of national power,” the
Pentagon’s 2022 Defense Budget Overview asserts. “A
combat-credible Joint Force will underpin a whole-of-nation approach to
competition and ensure the Nation leads from a position of strength.”
On this basis, the Pentagon requested $715
billion in military expenditures for 2022, with a significant chunk of those
funds to be spent on the procurement of advanced ships, planes, and missiles
intended for a potential all-out, “high-intensity” war with China. An extra $38
billion was sought for the design and production of nuclear weapons, another
key aspect of the drive to overpower China.
Democrats and Republicans in Congress,
contending that even such sums were insufficient to ensure continued U.S.
superiority vis-à-vis that country, are pressing for
further increases in the 2022 Pentagon budget. Many have also endorsed
the EAGLE Act, short
for Ensuring American Global Leadership and Engagement — a measure intended to
provide hundreds of billions of dollars for increased military aid to America’s
Asian allies and for research on advanced technologies deemed essential for any
future high-tech arms race with China.
Imagine, then, that such trends only
gain momentum over the next five years. What will this country be like in 2026?
What can we expect from an intensifying new Cold War with China that, by then,
could be on the verge of turning hot?
Taiwan 2026: Perpetually on the Brink
Crises over Taiwan have erupted on a
periodic basis since the start of the decade, but now, in 2026, they seem to be
occurring every other week. With Chinese bombers and warships constantly
probing Taiwan’s outer defenses and U.S. naval vessels regularly maneuvering
close to their Chinese counterparts in waters near the island, the two sides
never seem far from a shooting incident that would have instantaneous
escalatory implications. So far, no lives have been lost, but planes and ships
from both sides have narrowly missed colliding again and again. On each
occasion, forces on both sides have been placed on high alert, causing jitters
around the world.
The tensions over that island have
largely stemmed from incremental efforts by Taiwanese leaders, mostly officials
of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP),
to move their country from autonomous status as part of China to full
independence. Such a move is bound to provoke a harsh, possibly military
response from Beijing, which considers the island a renegade province. Buy the Book
The island’s status has plagued
U.S.-China relations for decades. When, on January 1, 1979, Washington first
recognized the People’s Republic of China, it agreed to withdraw diplomatic
recognition from the Taiwanese government and cease formal relations with its
officials. Under the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979,
however, U.S. officials were obligated to conduct informal relations with
Taipei. The act stipulated as well that any move by Beijing to alter Taiwan’s
status by force would be considered “a threat to the peace and security of the
Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States” — a stance
known as “strategic ambiguity,” as it neither guaranteed American intervention,
nor ruled it out.
In the ensuing decades, the U.S. sought
to avoid conflict in the region by persuading Taipei not to make any overt
moves toward independence and by minimizing its ties to the island, thereby
discouraging aggressive moves by China. By 2021, however, the
situation had been remarkably transformed. Once under the exclusive control of
the Nationalist Party that had been defeated by communist forces on the Chinese
mainland in 1949, Taiwan became a multiparty democracy in 1987. It has since
witnessed the steady rise of pro-independence forces, led by the DPP. At first,
the mainland regime sought to woo the Taiwanese with abundant trade and tourism
opportunities, but the excessive authoritarianism of its Communist Party
alienated many island residents — especially younger ones —
only adding momentum to the drive for independence. This, in turn, has prompted
Beijing to switch tactics from courtship to coercion by constantly sending its
combat planes and ships into Taiwanese air and sea space.
Trump administration officials, less
concerned about alienating Beijing than their predecessors, sought to bolster
ties with the Taiwanese government in a series of gestures that
Beijing found threatening and that were only expanded in
the early months of the Biden administration. At that time, growing hostility
to China led many in Washington to call for an end to “strategic ambiguity” and
the adoption of an unequivocal pledge to defend Taiwan if it were to come under
attack from the mainland.
“I think the time has come to be clear,”
Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas declared in
February 2021. “Replace strategic ambiguity with strategic clarity that the
United States will come to the aid of Taiwan if China was to forcefully invade
Taiwan.”
The Biden administration was initially
reluctant to adopt such an inflammatory stance, since it meant that any
conflict between China and Taiwan would automatically become a U.S.-China war
with nuclear ramifications. In April 2022, however, under intense congressional
pressure, the Biden administration formally abandoned “strategic ambiguity” and
vowed that a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would prompt an immediate American
military response. “We will never allow Taiwan to be subjugated by military
force,” President Biden declared at that time, a striking change in a
longstanding American strategic position.
The DoD would soon announce the
deployment of a permanent naval squadron to the waters surrounding Taiwan,
including an aircraft carrier and a supporting flotilla of cruisers,
destroyers, and submarines. Ely Ratner, President Biden’s top envoy for the
Asia-Pacific region, first outlined plans for such a force in June 2021 during
testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee. A permanent U.S.
presence, he suggested, would
serve to “deter, and, if necessary, deny a fait accompli scenario” in which
Chinese forces quickly attempted to overwhelm Taiwan. Although described as
tentative then, it would, in fact, become formal policy following President
Biden’s April 2022 declaration on Taiwan and a brief exchange of warning shots
between a Chinese destroyer and a U.S. cruiser just south of the Taiwan Strait.
Today, in 2026, with a U.S. naval
squadron constantly sailing in waters near Taiwan and Chinese ships and planes
constantly menacing the island’s outer defenses, a potential Sino-American
military clash never seems far off. Should that occur, what would happen is
impossible to predict, but most analysts now assume that
both sides would immediately fire their advanced missiles — many of them
hypersonic (that is, exceeding five times the speed of sound) — at their
opponent’s key bases and facilities. This, in turn, would provoke further
rounds of air and missile strikes, probably involving attacks on Chinese and
Taiwanese cities as well as U.S. bases in Japan, Okinawa, South Korea, and
Guam. Whether such a conflict could be contained at the non-nuclear level
remains anyone’s guess.
The Incremental Draft
In the meantime, planning for a
U.S.-China war-to-come has dramatically reshaped American society and
institutions. The “Forever Wars” of the first two decades of the
twenty-first century had been fought entirely by an All-Volunteer Force (AVF)
that typically endured multiple tours of duty, in particular in Iraq and
Afghanistan. The U.S. was able to sustain such combat operations (while
continuing to maintain a substantial troop presence in Europe, Japan, and South
Korea) with 1.4 million servicemembers because American forces enjoyed uncontested
control of the airspace over its war zones, while China and Russia remained
wary of engaging U.S. forces in their own neighborhoods.
Today, in 2026, however, the picture
looks radically different: China, with an active combat force of two million
soldiers, and Russia, with another million — both militaries equipped with
advanced weaponry not widely available to them in the early years of the
century — pose a far more formidable threat to U.S. forces. An AVF no longer
looks particularly viable, so plans for its replacement with various forms of
conscription are already being put into place.
Bear in mind, however, that in a future
war with China and/or Russia, the Pentagon doesn’t envision large-scale ground
battles reminiscent of World War II or the Iraq invasion of 2003. Instead, it
expects a series of high-tech battles involving
large numbers of ships, planes, and missiles. This, in turn, limits the need
for vast conglomerations of ground troops, or “grunts,” as they were once
labeled, but increases the need for sailors, pilots, missile launchers, and the
kinds of technicians who can keep so many high-tech systems at top operational
capacity.
As early as October 2020, during the
final months of the Trump administration, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper was
already calling for a
doubling of the size of the U.S. naval fleet, from approximately 250 to 500
combat vessels, to meet the rising threat from China. Clearly, however, there
would be no way for a force geared to a 250-ship navy to sustain one double
that size. Even if some of the additional ships were “uncrewed,” or robotic, the Navy would still have to
recruit several hundred thousand more sailors and technicians to supplement the
330,000 then in the force. Much the same could be said of the U.S. Air Force.
No surprise, then, that an incremental
restoration of the draft, abandoned in 1973 as
the Vietnam War was drawing to a close, has taken place in these years. In
2022, Congress passed the National Service Reconstitution Act (NSRA), which
requires all men and women aged 18 to 25 to register with newly reconstituted
National Service Centers and to provide them with information on their
residence, employment status, and educational background — information they are
required to update on an annual basis. In 2023, the NSRA was amended to require
registrants to complete an additional questionnaire on their technical,
computer, and language skills. Since 2024, all men and women enrolled in
computer science and related programs at federally aided colleges and
universities have been required to enroll in the National Digital Reserve Corps
(NDRC) and spend their summers working on defense-related programs at selected
military installations and headquarters. Members of that Digital Corps must
also be available on short notice for deployment to such facilities, should a conflict
of any sort threaten to break out.
The establishment of just such a corps,
it should be noted, had been a recommendation of the National Security
Commission on Artificial Intelligence, a federal agency established in 2019 to
advise Congress and the White House on how to prepare the nation for a
high-tech arms race with China. “We must win the AI competition that is
intensifying strategic competition with China,” the commission avowed in
March 2021, given that “the human talent deficit is the government’s most
conspicuous AI deficit.” To overcome it, the commission suggested then, “We
should establish a… civilian National Reserve to grow tech talent with the same
seriousness of purpose that we grow military officers. The digital age demands
a digital corps.”
Indeed, only five years later, with the
prospect of a U.S.-China conflict so obviously on the agenda, Congress is
considering a host of bills aimed at supplementing the Digital Corps with other
mandatory service requirements for men and women with technical skills, or
simply for the reinstatement of conscription altogether and the full-scale
mobilization of the nation. Needless to say, protests against such measures
have been erupting at many colleges and universities, but with the mood of the
country becoming increasingly bellicose, there has been little support for them
among the general public. Clearly, the “volunteer” military is about to become
an artifact of a previous epoch.
A New Cold War Culture of Repression
With the White House, Congress, and the
Pentagon obsessively focused on preparations for what’s increasingly seen as an
inevitable war with China, it’s hardly surprising that civil society in 2026
has similarly been swept up in an increasingly militaristic anti-China spirit.
Popular culture is now saturated with nationalistic and jingoistic memes,
regularly portraying China and the Chinese leadership in derogatory, often
racist terms. Domestic manufacturers hype “Made in America” labels (even if
they’re often inaccurate) and firms that once traded extensively with China
loudly proclaim their withdrawal from that market, while the streaming
superhero movie of the moment, The Beijing Conspiracy, on a foiled
Chinese plot to disable the entire U.S. electrical grid, is the leading
candidate for the best film Oscar.
Domestically, by far the most
conspicuous and pernicious result of all this has been a sharp rise in hate
crimes against Asian Americans, especially those assumed to be Chinese,
whatever their origin. This disturbing phenomenon, which began at the outset of
the Covid crisis, when President Trump, in a transparent effort to deflect
blame for his mishandling of the pandemic, started using terms like “Chinese
Virus” and “Kung Flu” to describe the disease. Attacks on Asian Americans rose
precipitously then and continued to climb after Joe Biden took office and began
vilifying Beijing for its human rights abuses in Xinjiang and Hong Kong. According
to the watchdog group Stop AAPI Hate, some 6,600 anti-Asian incidents were
reported in the U.S. between March 2020 and March 2021, with almost 40% of
those events occurring in February and March 2021.
For observers of such incidents back
then, the connection between anti-China policymaking at the national level and
anti-Asian violence at the neighborhood level was incontrovertible. “When
America China-bashes, then Chinese get bashed, and so do those who ‘look
Chinese,’” said Russell
Jeung, a professor of Asian American Studies at San Francisco State University
at that time. “American foreign policy in Asia is American domestic policy for
Asians.”
By 2026, most Chinatowns in America have
been boarded up and those that remain open are heavily guarded by armed police.
Most stores owned by Asian Americans (of whatever background) were long ago
closed due to boycotts and vandalism, and Asian Americans think twice before
leaving their homes.
The hostility and distrust exhibited
toward Asian Americans at the neighborhood level has been replicated at the
workplace and on university campuses, where Chinese Americans and Chinese-born
citizens are now prohibited from working at laboratories in any technical field
with military applications. Meanwhile, scholars of any background working on
China-related topics are subject to close scrutiny by their employers and
government officials. Anyone expressing positive comments about China or its
government is routinely subjected to harassment, at best, or at worst,
dismissal and FBI investigation.
As with the incremental draft, such
increasingly restrictive measures were first adopted in a series of laws in
2022. But the foundation for much of this was the United States Innovation and
Competition Act of 2021, passed by the Senate in June of that
year. Among other provisions, it barred federal funding to any college or
university that hosted a Confucius Institute, a Chinese government program to
promote that country’s language and culture in foreign countries. It also
empowered federal agencies to coordinate with university officials to “promote
protection of controlled information as appropriate and strengthen defense
against foreign intelligence services,” especially Chinese ones.
Diverging From the Path of War
Yes, in reality, we’re still in 2021,
even if the Biden administration regularly cites China as our greatest threat.
Naval incidents with that country’s vessels in the South China Sea and the
Taiwan Strait are indeed on the rise, as are anti-Asian-American
sentiments domestically. Meanwhile, as the planet’s two greatest greenhouse-gas
emitters squabble, our world is growing hotter by the year.
Without question, something like the
developments described above (and possibly far worse) will lie in our future
unless action is taken to alter the path we’re now on. All of those “2026”
developments, after all, are rooted in trends and actions already under way
that only appear to be gathering momentum at this moment. Bills like the
Innovation and Competition Act enjoy near unanimous support among Democrats and
Republicans, while strong majorities in both parties favor increased funding of
Pentagon spending on China-oriented weaponry. With few exceptions — Senator
Bernie Sanders among them — no one in the upper ranks of government is saying:
Slow down. Don’t launch another Cold War that could easily go hot.
“It is distressing and dangerous,” as
Sanders wrote recently in Foreign
Affairs, “that a fast-growing consensus is emerging in Washington that
views the U.S.-Chinese relationship as a zero-sum economic and military
struggle.” At a time when this planet faces ever more severe challenges from
climate change, pandemics, and economic inequality, he added that “the
prevalence of this view will create a political environment in which the
cooperation that the world desperately needs will be increasingly difficult to
achieve.”
In other words, we Americans face an
existential choice: Do we stand aside and allow the “fast-growing consensus”
Sanders speaks of to shape national policy, while abandoning any hope of
genuine progress on climate change or those other perils? Alternately, do we
begin trying to exert pressure on Washington to adopt a more balanced relationship
with China, one that would place at least as much emphasis on cooperation as on
confrontation? If we fail at this, be prepared in 2026 or soon thereafter for
the imminent onset of a catastrophic (possibly even nuclear) U.S.-China war.
Copyright 2021 Michael T. Klare
Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch
Books, John Feffer’s new dystopian novel, Songlands (the
final one in his Splinterlands series), Beverly Gologorsky’s novel Every Body Has a Story, and
Tom Engelhardt’s A Nation Unmade by War,
as well as Alfred McCoy’s In the Shadows of the American
Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power and
John Dower’s The Violent American Century:
War and Terror Since World War II.
Michael T. Klare, a TomDispatch regular, is the five-college
professor emeritus of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College and
a senior visiting fellow at the Arms Control Association. He is the author of
15 books, the latest of which is All Hell Breaking Loose: The
Pentagon’s Perspective on Climate Change. He is a founder of
the Committee for a Sane U.S.-China Policy.
--
THREATENED
HOT WAR
Viral
meme says United States has Invaded 22 countries in the past 20 years; In
fact, there are only three countries in the world America hasn't invaded or
have never seen
a U.S. military presence: Andorra, Bhutan, and Liechtenstein. According to
Kelly and Laycock's book, the United States has invaded or fought in 84 of the
193 countries recognized by the United Nations and has been militarily involved
with 191 of 193 – a staggering 98 percent----Nation of Change. CASA
CRY, NEWSLETTER OF CASA MARIA CATHOLIC WORKER (5-5-21).
How a
Cold War turns hot (hint: you add billions in weapons)
|
2:38
PM (26 minutes ago) |
|
Dick — last week the guided-missile destroyer USS Curtis Wilbur
steamed straight towards disputed islands in the South China Sea. Chinese
planes and warships were scrambled. Each side accused the other of violations.
The brinkmanship was predictable and intentional: the
ship set sail just hours after President Biden specifically laid into China in
a speech.
As 20 years of endless, global war rightly falls out of
political favor, a growing new Cold War mentality is taking hold that
paints China as an ‘existential threat’ requiring — surprise surprise — an
aggressive military response, more Pentagon spending, and crackdowns on
civil liberties.
It’s dangerous, self-serving, and feeds into racist anti-Asian
xenophobia that is already driving horrific murders and attacks — and the
Senate is set to make things worse.
The Senate is currently debating the ‘Strategic Competition Act’
— a bill laden with anti-China framing and policies that are certain to
entrench this new Cold War even further. That’s why our team is working
closely with allies in the House, organizations across the country, and in the
media, to push back aggressively. And we need your support.
Can you donate $15 to help Win
Without War stop a new Cold War?
|
If you've stored your info with
ActBlue, we'll process your contribution instantly:
|
It’s a classic case of a solution in search of a problem. The
same D.C. establishment (aka the “Blob”) that spent years of media commentary
and countless think-tank hours to propagate decades of endless war have picked
their new ‘boogeyman.’
It’s working. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have latched
onto conflict with China as a way of projecting false bipartisan unity and
now, the defense industry and their Pentagon pals are urgently pitching
Congress on the need to buy more weapons, even though our Pentagon budget is
already 3.5 times the size of China’s.
The Chinese government needs to be held to account for its
crimes against humanity targeting Uighurs and other human rights abuses. Xenophobia,
demonization, and military escalation don’t make accountability more likely —
they just put us on the well worn path to further insecurity, division, and
violence.
This week’s vote on the omnibus anti-China legislation in the
Senate is a major step in the *wrong* direction. And we are determined to put a
stop to Washington’s growing harmful approach to China before things spiral
further out of control.
I'm asking again: Can you donate
$15 to help Win Without War stop a new Cold War?
This moment presents a once in a lifetime opportunity to
fundamentally change how the U.S. government builds the security of its people
— we know that more militarization and demonization of China is a distracting
and self-defeating strategy toward the true security we need.
What we need is more innovation, cooperation, and multilateral
approaches, not hostility and confrontation, working together to win without
war.
Thank you for working for peace,
Erica, Michael, Sara, and the Win Without War team
POLITICAL CONFLICT
|
Does
China’s Rise Really Threaten the U.S.—Or Just Its Sociopathic Power Elite,
Who Want to Keep Ruling the World Even If It Drags Us Into WW III?
|
||||||||||||||||
From G7 to NATO meetings, imperialist powers turn
more aggressive towards China
Eds.
mronline.org (6-19-21)
In both the crucial summits of global north
nations, political leaders led by U.S. president Joe Biden, made sweeping and
unsubstantiated charges against China.
June 18, 2021 | Newswire
AMERICA INVADES: HOW WE'VE INVADED OR BEEN MILITARILY INVOLVED
WITH ALMOST EVERY COUNTRY ON EARTH BY CHRISTOPHER KELLY and STUART LAYCOCK. Book
Publishers Network. 2014. 396.
In this extensive, whimsical volume, the
authors posit what many have long suspected: the United States has invaded or
been militarily involved with almost every country on the globe.
Kelly, a longtime military-history buff,
readily admits in his introduction that he drew inspiration for his first book
from Laycock’s previous work (All the Countries We Invaded: And a Few We
Never Got Round To, 2012), which covers Great Britain’s overseas
excursions. The two got to talking and discovered that the U.S. offered even
greater fodder for such a compilation. It has invaded 84 out of the 194
countries recognized by the United Nations and has been militarily involved
with 191 of those. (The holdouts, the authors note, are Andorra, Bhutan, and
Liechtenstein.) Military action is never too far away for America, as Kelly
notes: “Americans are always hoping for peace but usually preparing for war.
The American Eagle is an ambivalent bird holding arrows in the talons of one
foot and an olive branch in the other.” A work such as this has the potential
for being academically stodgy, but Kelly and Laycock deftly avoid that trap.
Instead, they find colorful, obscure episodes from each country’s past. Take,
for example, Panama’s Watermelon War of 1856: “It was really more of a
Watermelon Riot, which was triggered by an intoxicated American railroad
traveler who took a slice of watermelon from a Panamanian fruit merchant and
refused payment. Fifteen Americans were killed in Panama City, and we sent our
troops in to restore order.” One drawback is that readers can get cast adrift
on the sea of military and political acronyms in the book, but the authors do
provide supporting materials, such as a glossary, maps, and a comprehensive
index, at the back of the volume to provide perspective for those seeking
clarification. Still, for a dedicated history fan, this is an invigorating
travelogue, taking readers around the world and backward and forward through
time.
An intensive compendium of America’s interactions, both good and bad, with
other countries that rightly leaves out the philosophizing.
Kirkus Reviews Issue: March
15, 2015
|
|
Danny Haiphong. Off the Rails: New report by Corporate-funded
think-tank reveals how profit-driven motives drive New Cold War against China. Mronline.org (6-9-21).
The same report paradoxically acknowledges
the failure of the economic model the U.S. has tried to impose on the rest of
the world
June 8, 2021 | Newswire
Wage war
against the philosophy of war
The Forty-Fifth Newsletter (2020)
Posted Nov 06, 2020 by Vijay Prashad
Imperialism , Marxism , State Repression , War Global Newswire China , coronavirus , COVID-19 , India , pandemic , Tricontinental
Newsletter
Originally
published: The Tricontinental (November 5, 2020) |
Dear
friends,
Greetings from the desk of
the Tricontinental: Institute for Social
Research.
In mid-October, the
International Monetary Fund (IMF) released its World
Economic Outlook report, which
offered some dizzying data. For 2020, the IMF estimates that the global Gross
Domestic Product (GDP) will decline by 4.4%, while in 2021 the global GDP will
rise by 5.2%. Stagnation and decline will define the economic activity in both
Europe and North America, as well as in large states such as Brazil and India.
With a second wave of coronavirus infections in Europe and with the first wave
not having been controlled in Brazil, India, and the United States, it appears
that these IMF estimates might sink further downwards.
Meanwhile, the data on China is quite astounding.
China will account for the absolute majority, namely 51%, of world growth.
Based on the IMF numbers, the other contributors to world growth will be mainly
Asian economies that have strong trading relations with China, namely South
Korea, Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam, and Malaysia. In 2020, China’s
National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) did not set any growth
targets due to the occurrence of the Great Lockdown. However, at the Central
Committee of the Communist Party of China, the NDRC head Ning Jizhe said that
targets would be set for 2021, although he reiterated that the growth targets would not be merely towards
GDP growth but towards ‘a steady improvement in quality’, which means
poverty alleviation. After the meeting, Yu Xuejun, deputy head of the National
Health Commission, said that
the ten million families who fell into poverty due to the coronavirus
disruptions have now been lifted out of poverty.
Given the continued disruptions caused by the virus and the
uncertainty about a vaccine, it would behove the countries of the world to dial
down tensions and expand collaborations. Exchange of information and personnel
to break the chain of the infection–organised by the World Health
Organisation–would enhance eroded public health systems. Yet, this is exactly
what the countries most impacted by the coronavirus–Brazil, India, and the
United States–refuse to do (and this is precisely what is being encouraged by
the socialist states such as China and Cuba).
While the United States drives a ‘vaccine nationalism’
agenda, using whatever means possible to secure a vaccine for U.S. residents
with no regard for the rest of the world population or the viruses’ disregard
for borders, China and Cuba have called
for a ‘people’s vaccine’. This approach, placing public health before
profit, advocates for all those seeking a vaccine to pool their patents and
share COVID-19 related technology. China has now formally joined the COVAX collaboration,
a platform organised by the WHO and others that will ‘support the research,
development and manufacturing of a wide range of COVID-19 vaccine candidates’.
The platform includes 184 countries, but not the major capitalist powers. At a
press briefing, Zhao Lijian said, ‘With
four vaccine candidates entering phase-3 clinical trials, China is
self-sufficient in vaccine production. Nevertheless, China decided to join
COVAX. The purpose is to promote equitable distribution of vaccines through concrete
actions, ensure the supply of vaccines in developing countries, and motivate
more capable countries to join and support COVAX’.
Meanwhile, as these
international initiatives developed, the United States went on a rampage across
the world to diminish China’s role but offer nothing productive in its place.
In South America, the U.S. has developed a programme called
Growth in the Americas (or América Crece),
whose purpose is
to draw U.S. private-sector funding to crowd out Chinese public investments. In
Africa and Asia, the U.S. has developed the Millennium Challenge
Corporation to provide modest funds as a challenge to
China’s Belt and Road Initiative.
Apart from these investment vehicles, the United States has sharpened its
military alliance with Australia, India, and Japan, known as the Quadrilateral
Security Dialogue (‘the Quad’). MORE
In 1965, as India and
Pakistan slipped into another war, Sahir Ludhianvi, one of the great Urdu poets
of his generation, wrote a poem called Ai Sharif Insano (‘O
Nobel Souls’). It begins with a summary of why war is so atrocious, for, after
all, war brings fire and blood, hunger, want, and scarcity. What about a war
against capitalism, suggests Sahir, rather than a war that takes the ‘blood of
human beings’?
Jang sarmaaye ke tasallut se
Aman jamhoor ki khushi ke liye
Jang jangon ke falsafe ke khilaaf
Aman pur-aman zindagi ke liye
Wage war against the grip of capitalism
Seek peace for the commoner’s happiness
Wage war against the philosophy of war
Seek peace for a peaceful life.
Zarina
Hashmi (India), Srebenica from These
Cities Blotted into Wilderness, 2003.
These are
wise words for our times.
Warmly,
Vijay.
It’s aggression when ‘they’ do it, but defense when
‘we’ do worse
Alan MacLeod. Mronline.org (5-7-21)
Aggression, in international politics, is
commonly defined as the use of armed force against another sovereign state, not
justified by self-defense or international authority.
May 6,
2021 | Newswire 
TECHNOLOGICAL CONFLICT
China on the horizon as ‘world’s pharmacy’
M. K. Bhadrakumar. Mronline.org (5-12-21).
The World Health Organisation’s approval
Friday for China’s COVID-19 vaccine known as Sinopharm dramatically transforms
the ecosystem of the pandemic.
May 11, 2021 | News
Community Infrastructure and the Care Crises: An
evaluation of China’s COVID-19 experience
Eds.
. mronline.org (5-7-21)
COVID-19 has exacerbated the gendered impact
of care work globally, but lessons can be learned from countries like China
that have relied on community organizations for solutions.
May 6, 2021 | Newswire
Peaceful Alternatives
[VFP-all]
Say No To A New Cold War with China Webinar ~ Tuesday, June 15th, 5:00 PM (PT)
~ Guests Madison Tang & Mel Gurtov ~ Hosted by CODEPINK CONGRESS
|
8:04
AM (6 hours ago) |
|
||
|
||||
Sent from
Marcy, CODEPINK: info@codepink.org
Join us this Tuesday
|
Dear Friend, You Are Invited To Join CODEPINK CONGRESS, Our New Campaign To
Mobilize Co-Sponsors and Votes for Peace Legislation! Tuesday Capitol Calling Party: Tuesday, June 15th, 5:00 PM - Pacific
Time 8:00 PM - Eastern Time Featuring Madison Tang, CODEPINK China
is Not Our Enemy campaign coordinator; author, organizer, and
educator against imperialism, militarism, and racial and gender-based
violence. Mel Gurtov, professor emeritus of
political science, Portland State University; senior editor, Asian
Perspective; co-author, Pentagon Papers. In response to the U.S. Senate’s disturbing passage of the
anti-China U.S. Innovation and Cooperation Act, CODEPINK Congress
will challenge the misguided framing of China as the nation’s greatest
security threat. The Biden administration, lawmakers, and military
contractors are using this framing to justify new weapons production, mock
nuclear strikes in the East Pacific, and troop deployments that make the
world less safe. Our guests will discuss the importance of avoiding a
military confrontation over the future of Taiwan. This week, we will take action against this dangerous act.
Call House Speaker Nancy Pelosi at 202-225-4965 to urge her to hold back the
US Innovation and Competition Act from a full House floor vote. CODEPINK Congress Google
Group and Local Leaders Join our CODEPINK Congress Google Group, a space for sharing
events and actions. Request to be added here! Also, become a CODEPINK Congress liaison in your district to
mobilize support for demilitarization and progressive foreign policy. Sign
up here as a volunteer
organizer. Onward Toward Peace & Justice, |
Case for cooperation between China
and US
MAY 19, 2023
The Global
Importance of Sino-American Relations
Photograph Source: The White
House – Public Domain
There is no more important diplomatic relationship for the
United States than its relations with China. The reverse is true for
China as well. If Washington and Beijing can’t solve their political and
economic issues than there will be regional instability in the Indo-Pacific
region that will ripple through the world. For the global community to
deal with the fundamental problems of climate change and pandemics, the two
most important and powerful nations in the world must find a way to communicate
and coexist. At this point in time, neither nation appears to accept or
even understand the urgency of the current situation.
During the Cold War, there was a common purpose throughout much
of the international arena, which allowed the United States to take the lead in
confronting the Soviet Union. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and
the end of the Cold War in 1991, the European Community lost interest in global
politics and stood by as the United States overplayed its hand and routinely
misused its military power in the Middle East and Southwest Asia. Our
European allies were willing to allow the United States to carry out its global
responsibilities as it saw fit. As long as Europe is prepared to rely on
the political and military dominance of the United States, it will be difficult
for the key European states to forge their own identities.
Meanwhile, China was dealing with its considerable domestic
problems, and not calling attention to its incremental military buildup.
China has not used military force since its ill-advised invasion of Vietnam in
1979 to “teach Vietnam a lesson.” Ironically, it was China that learned
it was not prepared for combined arms warfare and Vietnam’s battlefield experience
against the French and the United States over a twenty-five-year period created
serious tactical problems for the Chinese invaders.
Currently, China has been taking advantage of the U.S.
preoccupation with supporting Ukraine to steal a march on Washington’s
interests, particularly in the Middle East. Unlike the United States,
China has avoided contentious disputes throughout the Third World in order to
establish reliable state-to-state relations in the Global South. While
the Middle East has become America’s briar pitch, China has concluded long-term
energy deals with Iran and Saudi Arabia, and recently orchestrated a
rapprochement between the region’s leading countries. The United States
could not play the honest broker role because it has no diplomatic relations
with Iran and unreliable relations with Saudi Arabia.
American politicians and pundits have replaced the Soviet Union
with China as a threat in order to justify obscenely high defense spending and
a policy of containment against China itself. The policy of containment
appeared to work against the Soviet Union because of Soviet political and
economic weakness; a policy of containment will not work against China, a major
power with the world’s second largest economy and second largest defense
budget. The leading trade partner for most nations of the Indo-Pacific
region is China. It was easy for the United States to draw a dividing
line between the European Community and Russia, but it is unlikely that an
analogous dividing line can be drawn in Asia to isolate China.
In any event, the United States has sufficient military
resources in the Indo-Pacific region to give China pause before committing any
major provocation. The United States can also take advantage of Xi
Jinping’s ultra-nationalism, which has led Japan to bolster its military
capabilities; enabled closer relations between Japan and South Korea; and
allowed the United States to return to the use of strategic military facilities
in the Philippines. China particularly misplayed its diplomatic hand in
the Philippines. Nevertheless, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s
occupation of Ukraine has raised the possibility of Xi Jinping resorting
to force to solve the long-term problem of Taiwan’s sovereignty and statehood.
Thus far, the policies of the Biden administration have gotten
nowhere in creating a more stable and predictable relationship with
China. The Wilsonian appeal to democracy is a non-starter, predictably
because of U.S. hypocrisy in reaching out to authoritarian governments in Saudi
Arabia and Venezuela in order to obtain greater oil production. Most of
the states in the Indo-Pacific region want nothing to do with U.S. policies
that seem to be predicated on a worsening of Sino-American relations that could
lead to a Cold War.
The case can
be made that the U.S. would benefit from cooperative relations with all of the
Asian states, and that more stable relations with China would allow for greater
cooperation throughout the region. At the same time, the United States
and China could pursue mutual interests that include dealing with the climate
crisis; securing greater guarantees for the non-proliferation of nuclear
weapons; and even ameliorating the tensions created by North Korea’s nuclear
weapons program. It is difficult to imagine any improvement on the Korean
peninsula without Sino-American cooperation.
Finally,
even the slightest improvement in Sino-American relations would create some
anxiety in Putin’s Kremlin because of the disastrous and desperate situation
that Moscow faces on its long western borders. Thus far, the Biden
administration’s policy of dual containment against both Russia and China has
only driven Moscow and Beijing into the deepest partnership in their
history. Since China has shown great restraint in refusing to provide
important military weaponry to Russian forces, perhaps it’s time for a
reciprocal show of restraint on the part of the United States.
Melvin A. Goodman is a
senior fellow at the Center for International Policy and a professor of
government at Johns Hopkins University. A former CIA analyst, Goodman is
the author of Failure of
Intelligence: The Decline and Fall of the CIA and National
Insecurity: The Cost of American Militarism. and A Whistleblower
at the CIA. His most recent books are “American Carnage:
The Wars of Donald Trump” (Opus Publishing, 2019) and “Containing the
National Security State” (Opus Publishing, 2021). Goodman is the
national security columnist for counterpunch.org.
CONTENTS: US COLD WAR AGAINST CHINA ANTHOLOGY
#4, May 4, 2021.
https://jamesrichardbennett.blogspot.com/2021/05/us-cold-war-against-china-newsletter-4.html
THREATENED WAR
Pentagon Budget Prepares for War
US/India Alliance War Preparation
Taiwan Pushes US War v. China
US Encircles China
POLITICAL CONFLICT
Anti-China Hate and Politics
Ally Canada’s Uyghur Genocide Slander
US Slander and Libel v. China’s Vaccine Generosity
China v. US
China in Africa
Smith’s China’s Engine of Environmental
Collapse
ECONOMIC CONFLICT
China’s
Restraint on Capital for the Public Good
US Neoliberal Financialization v. China’s Industrial Socialism
TECHNOLOGICAL CONFLICT
China’s CO2 Emissions
Chinese Government Regulation of FF Industry
Emissions
MEDIA CONFLICT
Western Media Incite
Anti-Asian Racism
PEACEFUL ALTERNATIVES TO CONFLICT
Appeal for Collaboration Between
China and US
Remember Vietnam
END CHINA NEWSLETTER #5
No comments:
Post a Comment