■"Unhelpful China," op-ed by Dan Blumenthal, Washington Post, 6 December 2004, p. A21.
■"Russia's Unchecked Ambitions: The White House is treating the Ukrainian crisis as an isolated affair, and not linking it to Putin's actions in other former Soviet states," op-ed by Jackson Diehl, Washington Post, 6 December 2004, p. A21.
■"Beyond the Rim: China is bent upon and will achieve gross military and economic parity with the U.S.," op-ed by Mark Helprin, Wall Street Journal, 13 December 2004, p. A16.
■"Japan's New Military Focus: China and North Korea Threats," by James Brooke, New York Times, 11 December 2004, p. A3.
■"Embraceable E.U.," by Robert Kagan, Washington Post, 5 December 2004, p. B7.
■"Afghans' Gains Face Big Threat in Drug Traffic," by Eric Schmitt, New York Times, 11 December 2004, p. A1.
Dan Blumenthal sees China as a dangerous threat because when we engage it in an "engagement policy," China doesn't give us everything we want in every situation that we consider important.
America wants to isolate Iran, whereas China, facing a rough doubling of its energy in the next two decades, oddly enough wants to have warm relations with Iran, third biggest source of oil and second biggest source of gas in the world. Funny how that works, isn't it? America decides it's all about WMD, and China decides it's all about oil and gas. Therefore the United States is good, and China is obstructionist.
I mean the United States just conquered the world's second largest reserves of oil. Nothing provocative in that. What's a military occupation compared to a $100b oil and gas deal?
Ditto on the Sudan, where the U.S. has done so much on its own to stop the killing, that surely China holding up the all-powerful UN Security Council's economic sanctions is the reason why the killing goes on. Bad China, bad. This is all your fault!
Ditto on North Korea, where the U.S. offers China what in return for its possible help? How about a missile shield for East Asia with Beijing on the wrong side. Sound friendly enough to you? I mean, who can turn down an offer like that?
And of course, there is Taiwan, to whom we sell loads of weapons. Nothing provocative in that, mind you, so it does seem strange that China grows its military as its economy explodes in size. Really odd.
China is indeed very unhelpful. That's why the world refers to it as a hyperpower out of control, bent on conquering the world for oil!
Hmmm, that sounds vaguely familiar . . .
Well, we should definitely do to China what the Brits did to us when we arose in the first half of the 20th century as their eventual equal: we should target them as a long-term threat and do whatever it takes to make them our enemy! I mean, screw this nonsensical Global War on Terrorism! Don't change our military into peacekeepers or counter-terrorist elements! Better to wall off America and wait for the Chinese to eventually come after us! Yes, Mark Helprin is a strategic genius. China is on the verge of matching our expeditionary forces. It will happen any day now—the differences between elbows and assholes notwithstanding. Hell, I'd trade the U.S. military for China's right now, to answer Cap Weinberger's old question about the Sovs. We are such fools not to see this coming.
Russia is also clearly very bad. Can you imagine the U.S. badgering small defenseless countries in its "near abroad"? I mean, just invading them and removing leaders from power? I dunno, like in Haiti or Panama or Haiti or Haiti?
Geez, do you think it's time to invade Haiti again? It seems like such a long time since we did it last?
Of course, when we do it, it's all for the good, something I truly believe. But whenever anyone else in the Core does it, you know it's gotta be bad—all bad.
Too bad the Europeans aren't more like us, invading countries more often. Instead, those pussies insist on offering smaller, poorer nations the chance to join their union.
Gosh, I seem to remember America doing the same a long time ago.
Maybe we should just make Haiti the 51st state. Gotta be cheaper than invading every five years for . . . I dunno . . . about the last 100 years.
Maybe the U.S. should try the EU route, offering, as Robert Cooper says, "the lure of membership." Maybe if we weren't so uptight about our borders, we'd be a bit more trusted whenever we acted abroad militarily, or when we lecture the Europeans about letting more Muslims in as immigrants.
But at least Japan is becoming more like us: more fixated on North Korea and China as threats, building up its defense, erecting (with our help) an east Asia missile shield. It might be cheaper just to topple Kim Jong Il and make friends with China, the country whose imports of Japanese goods accounted for something like 90% of Japan's economic growth in that category last year. But why take the easy route? Better Japan build up its defenses over time. That's how you really grow the Core, not the way those pansy Europeans insist on doing it—by invitation, mind you!
| Permalink |
