Pity poor George W. Bush. Already under fire from some quarters for his decision to attend the Olympic Games in Beijing, he drew more fire for keeping his harshest words for China out of his speeches in Beijing, and more fire still for being in Beijing and “out of the loop” for the sudden Russian invasion of Georgia. For many, just more proof that W is a bumbling fool.
But in reference to both China and Russia, it’s really Bush’s foes who are foolish, and W who really understands what is needed. Whether we like it or not, the world is currently geopolitically divided into four power blocks: the United States, Russia, China, and everyone else. The European Union and Japan can compete economically (though each is less of a competitor than either seems to realize) but lack any credible military power projection. The rest of the world may have armies, but has neither the economic might nor the infrastructure to really project them. Like it or hate it, at the present time the US really only has two rivals for hegemony: Russia and China.
And since 1972, the United States has conducted a long, slow, steady dance which has slowly but steadily transformed the People’s Republic of China from an insular, xenophobic rival into an engaged, cosmopolitan economic partner. The PRC remains an autocratic state run by a cabal which can be brutal but which, increasingly, hides its iron fist in a velvet glove. Most importantly, the PRC’s leadership has adopted a nearly explicit bargain with its people: in return for your obedience we will deliver you prosperity. This means that the PRC has little choice but to grant a growing class of wealthy capitalists and prosperous businessmen increasing freedom of action. While these classes may be largely apolitical, they will make increasing demands for their own personal, economic, and social freedom. And the Chinese will have to either deliver or watch the prosperity they need vanish.
Sadly, since 1992, Russia has taken an opposite course: clawing its way out of Communist tyranny only to fall into the worst excesses of kleptocracy and crony capitalism. As China has been building economic freedom, Russia has been reducing it—limiting wealth and influence to a tiny class of criminal overlords and political cronies. And while the Chinese leaders increasingly choose to conceal their true power, Vladimir Putin has been steadily accumulating the trappings and practice of the Czars of old. And now, at long last, he has taken up the favorite Czarist pastime: gobbling up vulnerable neighbors on the most transparent of pretenses.
Unfortunately, much as we might like to, we simply can’t afford to meet such Russian aggression openly on the battlefield. Any large direct confrontation between American and Russian forces must result in either many, many Russian soldiers killed by American weapons or vice-versa. And that means that in any such confrontation, the specter of nuclear retaliation cannot be avoided. No matter how unlikely, the very thought of nuclear escalation must give us pause, especially against someone with Putin’s sociopathic patterns. Yet we cannot allow Russia to simply crush sovereign nations without limit or reprisal.
So the Administration’s strategy of avoiding rattling the saber in favor of threatening credible economic and political reprisals makes sense. As does the Administration’s willingness to allow the Russians to save face after what was, after all, a profoundly stupid move by the Georgians. And a move done in clear opposition to the consistent advice and counsel of the United States. No matter what provocations Russia engaged in—and the evidence is building that they all but directed separatist attacks—Georgia’s overwhelming military response targeting Russian “peacekeepers” directly was the worst possible response. And one which greatly limited American ability to back the Georgians.
But, as long as Russian aggression can be contained by a strong and unified stance by the US and its allies, then in the long run, Russia is the less important concern. Drunk with oil profits, and headed by a burgeoning Napolean, Russia is an important short-term threat. But it is also an aging nation with a declining population, crumbling infrastructure, and rampant corruption. In the long run, it is energetic China, with its huge population, exploding economy, and tremendous optimism which will be the great rival or the great partner of the United States. Bush can’t afford to ignore or underestimate Russia, but he knows that China deserves the greater attention.
The greater attention, and the greater respect. China remains a nation with oppressive laws, cavalier treatment of certain basic human rights, and problematic limits to the rule of law with respect to senior government and military officials. But it has also made almost unbelievable strides in a very short time. Beijing in 1988 was not a place many Westerners, much less many businessmen, would have chosen to live in. Beijing in 1998 had seen vast improvement, but still had much to do. The Beijing of 2008 has become a vibrant place of commerce, prosperity, and genuine cosmopolitan life. The limits on personal freedom remain, but have become largely unimportant for daily life: more Singapore than Communist China. Serious problems remain, but the urban centers of China of today are far more similar to those of Korea or Japan than most would have predicted even a decade ago.
So W was right when he expressed his strategy to Bob Costas in a brief, but frank interview. To influence China we must remain engaged with China. And to remain engaged with China, we must show clearly that we respect China and her recent accomplishments. To be sure, we must continue to use that relationship to urge reform and liberty, but we don’t have to slap the Chinese in the face during their big moment. Instead, we can do exactly what W did: call clear attention to the problems but keep the greater focus on the positive changes in China and the decades-old Sino-American relationship that has helped to produce them.
August 20, 2008 at 11:32 pm
My question is, “If diplomacy and trade are good enough to cement a lasting friendship with the ChiComms, why not all our other adversaries?” The secular ideology that drives the leadership of the PRC is every bit as ingrained as the religious fundamentalism that drives Iran. Why is this model the obvious “strategery” on the one hand, but not even worthy of consideration on the other?
I think the moral judgment cast against Russia is disingenuous (at best) from anyone who supports the Bush administration’s obvious hegemonic plans for the ME. Bush, Rice, et al., protesting against the violation of sovereign states would be laughable if it weren’t so pathetic.
While I agree with the bulk of your analysis, AOC, I don’t think I’d rule out — completely — military action, at least through a surrogate (to a greater degree than that which has already occurred vis-a-vis Georgia’s attack), and I’d suggest “credible economic reprisals” are usually the better way to go, absent clear evidence for self-defense or retaliation. Call me a conspiracy nut, but I would not be at all surprised to see an “October Surprise” to boost McCain through the general election.
I have lost all faith in the motives of the US government. But it seems to me that free and open markets always out-perform naked aggression in changing minds and winning hearts.
August 21, 2008 at 12:06 pm
In general I agree that engagement and trade are better than isolation and embargo. However, Iran and China are not analogous because Iran has never renounced its desire for the annihilation of our regional ally, apologized for the blatant act of war it committed against us, or otherwise sought to normalize relations. China has. It has shown a desire to mend fences and move forward in economic partnership. Iran could do the same, but its leadership shows no inclination to do so.
Bush, Rice, et al., protesting against the violation of sovereign states would be laughable if it weren’t so pathetic.
Well, if we regard oppressive and tyrannical dictatorships backing or committing acts of war against the United States as equal to democratic states trying to re-enter the community of civilized nations after decades of brutal oppression by a foreign occupier, then I suppose that makes sense. But I suspect Bush and Rice would reject this moral equivalency as strongly as I do. National sovereignty is not an inalienable right.
August 21, 2008 at 12:12 pm
As for fighting the Russians by proxy, certainly we should be working with Georgia, Ukraine, Poland, etc. to build up their forces and help them face the Russian threat. My point was only that direct confrontation must be avoided if possible. Though Putin seems determined to repeat the 1930s German playbook it would seem, complete with the defense of oppressed ethnic minorities as the pretense.
But, if not direct confrontation, then other strong measures must be used, or Putin will likely interpret the Western signals the same way Hitler and Stalin did 70 years ago: as a blank check for conquest. He’ll be wrong, but the price is too terrible to contemplate.
August 21, 2008 at 5:07 pm
I think the price will be terrible at any rate, AOC. The NATO expansionism into Russia’s neighborhood over the past several years smack’s of Chamberlain’s assurances of defense to Poland. What inducement exists for Georgia to deal rationally with Russia if the entire Western world has her back? I see a very dangerous and disastrous game of brinksmanship coming down the pike, and it’s not helped any by Condi’s incessant taunting of Russia.
As far as “oppressed ethnic minorities,” I don’t think that’s a pretense. While Putin may be exploiting that angle, the ethnic Russians in South Ossetia have been agitating for independence from Georgia for some time now. (National sovereignty may not be an inalienable right, but self-determination is) To that extent, it is reminiscent of 1930s Poland, in that Danzig was vastly ethnic Germans who wanted to rejoin the Fatherland, after, post-WWI, national boundaries were redrawn. And Bush is following in Chamberlain’s devastatingly foolish steps.
Not to mention which, prior to this new phallus-measuring, Bush had over-committed our military. I doubt — seriously doubt — that either a war with Iran or one in defense of Georgia could be fought at all. Not with conventional weapons, anyway. Much better to back off and let them hash out their own problems.
And as for Israel, I’m quite certain she can take care of herself. The IDF proved that in 1967, against pretty much every regional enemy she has, and without benefit of American assistance.
I’m sorry, but I just don’t see where we have a compelling national security interest in this.
August 21, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Chamberlain’s mistake was not the 11th-hour assurances to Poland. It was being the second in a 10-year line of British appeasers who ignored the manifestly vicious nature of their foe for the siren song of peace. Bush has many faults, including perhaps overlooking Putin’s sociopathic nature, but he has not made Chamberlain’s error.
The only way Georgia could “deal rationally” with Russia from the Russian standpoint would have been capitulation and Finlandization. Putin’s Russia is as uncompromisingly expansionist as Czarist Russia ever was.
Self-determination is no more an inalienable right than sovereignty. Living somewhere, even for a long time, does not convey an unassailable right to secede from a larger political entity. Putin is probably far less authentically concerned about the Ossetians than Hitler was about his German minorities.
And even for Hitler, the Danzig thing was simple, naked aggression, as historical documents make clear. Hitler was looking for an excuse and no reasonable accommodation was possible.
Opposing Russia is not phallus-measuring, it is trying to ensure that Putin doesn’t make the mistake that Hitler made. Because the next world war ends even more badly for everyone.
August 21, 2008 at 5:36 pm
As for our alleged inability to oppose Russia conventionally. It’s true that ground forces would not be involved, but even the Russians will have trouble moving significant reinforcements in without air supremacy.
So, as long as the Georgians are willing to fight, US airpower can turn Georgia into a slaughterhouse for Russian troops. But that, of course, requires direct confrontation, which leads back to the temptation for Putin to settle things with tactical nukes. Which leads to a very dark place indeed.
Which is why it won’t happen, unless Putin gives us no other choice. Which he will do if we show continued weakness. Because he, like the thugs before him, fundamentally misunderstands our restraint for weakness.
August 22, 2008 at 10:44 am
However, Iran and China are not analogous because Iran has never renounced its desire for the annihilation of our regional ally, apologized for the blatant act of war it committed against us, or otherwise sought to normalize relations. China has.
Ummmm… pass the crack pipe, and share the good stuff. China has NEVER renounced its desire for the annihilation of our regional ally (Taiwan). They’ve never apologized for the blatant acts of war they committed against Tibet and East Turkestan, or those against India. And they certainly haven’t sought to normalize relations with us, we’ve sought to normalize with them. In doing so we’ve compromised on human rights and freedoms every time, kow-towing to Chinese abuse and pretending it’s A-OK that our new friend and ally tortures puppies and eats babies for fun.
Yes, they have supported us in Afghanistan, but it’s no surprise they’d like to see their radical neighbors nuked to oblivion. Thats a win for China, especially since all they contributed was a lousey $150M and then only AFTER we had toppled the Taliban.
August 22, 2008 at 5:45 pm
China has NEVER renounced its desire for the annihilation of our regional ally (Taiwan).
Hmm, I must have missed the numerous threats to kill all the Taiwanese, or even storm the province by force irregardless of Taiwanese actions. Perhaps you could point to one? An official Chinese document or direct quote of a major Chinese official, if you please.
They’ve never apologized for the blatant acts of war they committed against Tibet and East Turkestan, or those against India.
Man, it’s a bad week for me. I also missed the notice that we had annexed Tibet, East Turkestan, and India 50+ years ago. A link to that documentation would be nice too.
Which brings us to the human rights issues. And there, of course, you have a point—China is no paragon of human rights. But unlike the Obamessiah, I am not on record as arguing that the Chinese model is superior to ours.
I am more humble than The One and merely point out that China has made strides to become like us in certain key ways: economic (though not social or political) freedom, an interest in global stability rather than chaos, and a mutual interest in finding ways to sustain economic growth into the future.
August 25, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Hmm, I must have missed the numerous threats to kill all the Taiwanese, or even storm the province by force irregardless of Taiwanese actions. Perhaps you could point to one? An official Chinese document or direct quote of a major Chinese official, if you please.
My pleasure:
Anti-seccession law of 2005, which specifically denies status quo as an alternative, and indicates that war will be used to force the ROC to renounce sovereignty if they cannot be coerced into doing so by other means. Of course I assume you’re familiar with their missile launches in 1996, and the threatened military action during Taiwan’s presidential elections. Right now the ROC holds military dominance, but that won’t last.
Man, it’s a bad week for me. I also missed the notice that we had annexed Tibet, East Turkestan, and India 50+ years ago. A link to that documentation would be nice too.
A place doesn’t need to be a part of us, only an ally and friend, for crimes committed against them to be an Act of War. China has repeatedly disregarded our allies. If they didn’t have cheap slave labor for us to exploit, we’d make a bigger deal over this.
But unlike the Obamessiah, I am not on record as arguing that the Chinese model is superior to ours.
Actually he is just on record warning us about the further prospect for businesses to move from the US to China, which is a big and serious worry. But then again, I shouldn’t have high expectations for Republican reading skills given our current President.
August 26, 2008 at 9:15 am
AOC:
If you want to deny self-determination as inalienable, you come to the problem of making the very existence of the US invalid; by your logic we should still be a British colony. If you wish to argue that our fighting for freedom validates our existence, then you’re in an untenable moral position: Might makes right. (tho’ that would be consistent with current US foreign policy)
AM:
August 26, 2008 at 9:16 am
Err… umm… actually, after “Act of War,” that was me.
Damned html tags….
August 26, 2008 at 11:23 am
Huh? In which Article of the Constitution can I find that? That’s the monster-seeking attitude that has caused no end of problems for us.
Are you daft? The Constitution is not the sole document of the USA. Our involvement in conflicts such as Vietnam and the Desert Storm are clear examples of “You screw with our friends, you screw with us.” And quite frankly if you think defending ones friends is “monster-seeking”, I’d hate to be one of your friends the day he needs help.
As far as China, it is a better model than the US, if only in that as our freedoms are being abrogated in the name of the “national security” canard, and our economic strength is being eroded (yes, by outsourcing, but much, much more so by the way our agressively expansionist foreign policy is hollowing us out), China is growing by leaps and bounds on both fronts, domestic freedom and economic prosperity.
Then please move to China. I’ll note that our “abrogated freedoms” still allow you to criticize our government, we’ll see how that works for you in China. The idea that China’s freedoms have grown at all is a mistake caused by lack of perspective. Political dissidents are still jailed and murdered, and the families of overseas Chinese are still being held for ransom. Hell, the Chinese can’t even move to another city without Dear Leader’s approval.
Either way, supporting either of the two fungible candidates over the other — especially as passionate as most seem to do — appears to me to be beyond ludicrous. The only substantive — barely — difference I’ve been able to find between them is abortion:
Sounds like you haven’t been looking. Abortion is the issue they share the most in common with. Issues such as health care, tax burden, etc, are the main issues of difference.
August 26, 2008 at 12:58 pm
On the contrary, our involvement in Vietnam and Desrt Storm are clear examples of the fact that the federal government has succeeded in throwing off all constraints imposed by the Constitution, as is Iraq now. And that the American people will be complicit in the tyranny that is sure to ensue. No, the Constitution is not the “sole document of the USA;” it is only the highest law of the land. (seems I read that somewhere…)
As for your glaring non sequitur, the US gov’t is not empowered, constitutionally, to revenge attacks on any, much less every, other friendly country; likewise, I am unable to escalate every minor offense against my friends into a mortal struggle (something at which the federal gov’t has become singularly expert).
And I guess you’re right: the American government would never arrest people without charge, and hold them indefinitely with no access to family or legal counsel. By the way, I was speaking to the trend on liberty that each country is following; for an idea on how very far China has come in a very short period of time, take a gander at this. Then compare that to this country, where our financial transactions can be monitored without warrant or our knowledge, phone and internet communications can likewise be monitored with no recourse, and the President, while brazenly ignoring his mandate to enfoce Conrgress’ laws, refers to the Constitution that enumerates his and Congress’ powers as “just a goddamned piece of paper.” Your fevered defense of same only underscores my point. Furthermore, appreciating the good that is growing in China does not mean that I would live there; criticizing the American government does not mean that I wish to leave. May I suggest that you cease conflating the US government with the US? Or are you saying that US citizenship requires one to rubber-stamp everything the government does? With attitudes like that, it’s small wonder that our freedoms are getting frayed at the edges.
Whether Obama raises taxes, or McCain simply inflates the dollar into oblivion via endless foreign campaigns, the burden on us citizens is the same. Neither will stop the rampant redistributionism; they only advocate different beneficiaries. The fungible candidates’ rhetoric is different, but their records are eerily similar.
August 27, 2008 at 4:16 pm
No, the Constitution is not the “sole document of the USA;” it is only the highest law of the land.
And no where does it say we have to stand by and watch our friends get beaten up. It does not forbid us going to war for our allies. In other words, it was written by smart people, not morons.
and the President, while brazenly ignoring his mandate to enfoce Conrgress’ laws, refers to the Constitution that enumerates his and Congress’ powers as “just a goddamned piece of paper.”
Now I hate Dubya as much as the next guy, but I’m pretty sure he has never said that. Care to provide a source, or barring that admit you pulled it out of your ass?
Furthermore, appreciating the good that is growing in China does not mean that I would live there
You said it was a better model… so why not move there? I mean if America is so bad for your personal freedoms, perhaps you would find life under the iron boot of The Party more desirable?
August 30, 2008 at 2:05 am
AM:
And no where does it say we have to stand by and watch our friends get beaten up. It does not forbid us going to war for our allies.
No, but it does forbid the President running off and jumping into wars all over the globe:
And in fact, that’s exactly the sort of thing Washington, Jefferson, and Madison warned against. Hell, I don’t doubt Hamilton would be horrified at the power that’s been concentrated in the executive in the last few decades.
Care to provide a source, or barring that admit you pulled it out of your ass?
So I’ll back off the “refers to,” and submit “likely refers to.” I certainly agree with the last statement: it is consistent with the type of behavior we’ve seen from Bush. The rest of my statement stands. America is trending towards less and less freedom (in all the ways you detailed in your post about the ridiculous PUMAs), and China is trending towards more freedom; economically, they are building up their infrastructure, while we are hemorrhaging ours.
[W]hy not move there… if America is so bad for your personal freedoms
Huh. Funny, in reading your posts, I never pictured you as the “if you don’t like it, get the hell out” hillbilly-moron type, so why would you use such non-arguments? China is a better model, if I can quote myself, “if only in that as our freedoms are being abrogated in the name of the ‘national security’ canard, and our economic strength is being eroded…, China is growing by leaps and bounds on both fronts, domestic freedom and economic prosperity.” Need I remind you what Ben Franklin said about liberty and security? Besides, I didn’t say it was a better place to live, or preferable in any way except in the relative direction the two countries are moving.