You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
China-Japan-Koreas
Is China Trying to Bankrupt US?
2011-06-10
One popular narrative credits the end of the Cold War to a US strategy to bankrupt the Soviet Union. Well aware of the advantage conferred by its superior economic performance, Washington pushed Moscow into a military competition that drained the USSR of its resources. In this narrative, US President Ronald Reagan's push to create a missile defence system -- realistic or not -- was the straw that broke the Soviet back.

Are Chinese strategists pursuing a similar approach to the United States? Is Beijing pushing US buttons, forcing it to spend increasingly scarce resources on defence assets and diverting them from other more productive uses? Far-fetched though it may seem -- and the reasons to be sceptical are pretty compelling -- there is evidence that China is doing just that: ringing American alarm bells, forcing the US to respond, and compounding fiscal dilemmas within the United States. Call it Cold War redux.
This is just a variant on the 'China Threat', or the 21st century equivalent of the 'yellow peril', type of article. The writer imagines the Chinese to be both four feet and ten feet tall.
China emerged from the 2007-8 global economic crisis with a new sense of its strength and corresponding US weakness when it comes to money and power. The Chinese don't have the new balance of power right -- the United States isn't as weakened as many assume and China has its own problems -- but they are right to note both the centrality of economic strength to international position and a new attitude and atmosphere in the United States. Beijing also senses US overextension and sensitivity to Chinese provocations (broadly defined). There's a new economic reality for US security planners.

Money is tight. In this era of new austerity, the United States has to make increasingly difficult choices about spending priorities. Both economic rationality and military purpose have to guide procurement. Defence Secretary Robert Gates tried to get in front of this process with a budget that cuts $100 billion in defence spending. He isn't trying to gut the military as some allege, but instead seeks to strengthen it with a long-term spending plan. His fear is that in the absence of such a proposal, ad hoc decisions (decisions not guided by a long-term strategy) will damage US capabilities.

China is trying to shape that strategy -- not just by playing down its potential to threaten the United States but by playing up some of its capabilities. That's one way to read China's January 2007 anti-satellite test or the test of the stealth fighter in January of this year just as Gates was visiting China. China is trying to make its capabilities, no matter how nascent or premature, the focus of US planning and forcing the US to respond.

While this theory -- that China would highlight its own threat to force a US response -- sounds far-fetched, it seems to be working. There's mounting concern in the defence community over China's deployment of an aircraft carrier and its anti-access area denial strategy. That's reasonable: hysteria and dire warnings about a transformation of the regional balance of power are not.

Some Chinese strategists offer an explanation for the tests that have so inflamed US sensitivities that fits this grand design. One expert argues that China is hedging -- the tests both maintain Chinese capabilities and signal the United States that it can't hope to make 'a technological breakout' that China will not match. Beijing won't let the US monopolize high-tech capabilities. The flip side of that logic is that China will do enough to keep the United States on alert, if not hypersensitive to Chinese actions, and that will drive US decision-making.

On the other hand, Henry Kissinger's recent tome notwithstanding, most observers don't credit the Chinese with the ability to be that strategic or far sighted, nor do they have a monolithic foreign policy establishment. In this context, the ASAT and fighter provocations could just as easily be explained as being the result of bureaucracies behaving badly, i.e., ministries failing to coordinate.
That's the sort of excuse-making the liberal left did throughout the Cold War -- the Soviets were just a bunch of bumpkins (like Nitika K), and if we just quit pressuring them and let them do what they wanted they'd settle down. The Soviets were bumpkins in several ways, but it took Reagan to push them -- hard -- to bring them down. Co-existence, as advocated by people from Stevenson to Kissinger, was just another way of saying that we didn't care if the average Russian was enslaved. Now the same philosophy says that we should leave the Chinese be -- that is, let the average person in China be a slave. It wasn't right fifty years ago and it isn't right today.
Most significantly, the success of the Cold War redux strategy -- if it exists -- depends on the United States surrendering the initiative to China. There's little evidence that this is happening. But there is no mistaking the attention to Chinese developments and the potential threats they pose to US pre-eminence in the western Pacific, the protection of US and allied interests, and regional stability generally. That is the correct approach -- but US decison makers shouldn't hyperventilate about or overinflate the Chinese threat. As CSIS Pacific Forum President Ralph Cossa has noted, 'When the Chinese finally deploy an operational aircraft carrier -- and there is a big distinction between sea trials and becoming fully operational (measured in years, not months) -- the proper US response should be to congratulate Beijing on finally achieving the status of the Soviet (or Ukrainian) Navy, circa 1984.'

Some historians challenge the Cold War narrative upon which this 'strategy' is based, arguing that the Soviet Union collapsed from within with little help from the United States. That doesn't mean that the dangers of US implosion aren't real, however.
We're not going to implode. We have something the Soviets never had -- freedom. That means we're free to recognize our mistakes, and fix them.
Budget funds are tight. And, significantly, cracks are beginning to appear within the United States. National politics are increasingly polarized and paralyzed as the country debates how to get its economic house in order. A recent Wall Street Journal editorial told readers they have to choose between being a superpower or a welfare state. That is precisely the choice the new Cold Warriors would want us to face. Nothing could be more divisive or more capable of short-circuiting US politics. Nothing would be more detrimental to long-term US interests than to short-change the domestic investments needed to keep the country strong.
Domestic investment doesn't mean more welfare state, it may well mean less, and more true investment into building the country. That includes fixing the various financial problems once and for all. We need not throw money at every domestic problem, real and imagined.
In addition, defence procurement has to be smarter and better focused.
Well that's brilliant. Sure, we all want 'smarter and better focused' procurement. Pray tell how do we do that?
Force reductions are inevitable (and have been occurring) but they need not undermine US capabilities. Nor will they send the wrong signals to allies and adversaries if they are the result of a deliberate strategy.

Most important, the United States must better leverage its strengths, in particular its relationships with allies, friends and partners.

Alliances and relationships are force multipliers. The more tightly integrated the US and its allies, the more convincing the signal to potential adversaries that the United States is committed to the defence of those partners -- in other words, it strengthens our deterrent. And that is the most important element of our security strategy in the Asia Pacific.
The U.S. is pretty much the only country that can counter any plans the China have for regional or global hegemony. Our allies in the region have their own problems (Japan, Philippines) or pre-occupations (Korea, Thailand). Other countries might want to counter the Chinese but aren't strong enough to do so, and aren't willing to trust us (India). Yes, we need a strategy to ensure that China doesn't threaten its neighbors. That strategy needs weight behind it. Right now that's the problem.
Posted by:Steve White

#20  yes we can screw it up without the help of the Chinese, but they can come in and clean up after weÂ’re through; i.e., marginalize us to the point where we are as relevant as the fellow arguing with the TitanicÂ’s bartender over the bill.
Posted by: Jack Salami   2011-06-10 21:50  

#19  Morale is to material as is the ratio of three to one.
Posted by: N. Buonaparte   2011-06-10 21:00  

#18  This State Department scribbler has been plagiarizing Paul Kennedy - he hits us with a blizzard of words when a few simple facts would suffice - the relative sizes of the US and Soviet economies during the Cold War, and defense expenditures as a % of GDP. Do the same for China vis-a-vis the US, and you have some basis for comparison. Instead, the guy puts up a whole bunch of irrelevant facts and speeds to his pre-determined conclusion, a la Paul Kennedy, that the US is about to be buried by a Communist behemoth. His motto appears to be "Who are you going to believe, me or your lyin' eyes?"
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2011-06-10 20:37  

#17  May not be free anymore, Snowy, but thanks to the 2nd Amendment, we do still have the means to reclaim freedom (if not the will - yet.)
Posted by: Lampedusa Sforza4564   2011-06-10 16:58  

#16  Problem is, if every government-dependent out there is going to claim that you must make good every lie that's ever been told to them from FDR through LBJ and RMN on forward to WJC and BHO, well, YOU'RE NOT FREE.
Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain   2011-06-10 14:53  

#15  We're not going to implode. We have something the Soviets never had -- freedom. That means we're free to recognize our mistakes, and fix them.

Current evidence suggests that we are... and that we can't anymore.
Posted by: Secret Master   2011-06-10 14:16  

#14  But it is peculiar that the inter-bank markets seized up just 2 months before the election as McCain was gaining ground on the Won.

Most peculiar indeed. One theory I heard is that it was Chuck Schumer running his mouth about Indymac bank. The timing doesn't seem to be exactly right there but I still wouldn't put it past the likes of Schumer.

Our relationship with China certainly doesn't seem to be very healthy. They sell us computers and then they devote an entire division of the PLA to hacking those computers. Will they get me for having the nerve to say so? I gotta say it anyway.

The most disturbing part of the whole deal is the way our political and business leaders kowtow to the commie bastards. Sickening and scary.
Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305   2011-06-10 11:40  

#13  The normalistic thinking is that the PRC are incrementalists.

Their holdings of US debt and US security are far too important for them to want the US to implode.

What they want are such things as:

- an end to discussion of human rights in the PRC

- decrease in sales of weapons to Taiwan

- suppressing any thoughts of Japan getting nuclear weapons

- an end to some tariff problems

- no investigations of various Chinese biz practices, including the indirect bribery of Chinese by US firms doing biz in the PRC

- a decrease in efforts to foil intellectual property theft in the PRC
Posted by: Lord Garth   2011-06-10 11:28  

#12  I think if I was China, holding all that US debt, I would be trading that debt for ownership of lots of teetering small banks that hold farm mortgages in the weather-ravaged breadbasket - then they can foreclose when the farms can't make their payments. (Assuming any banks still actually hold mortgages.)
Posted by: Glenmore   2011-06-10 11:16  

#11  Of course they are. They are handing us all the rope we need as we make a noose for ourselves.
Posted by: DarthVader   2011-06-10 10:00  

#10  no mo,

Absolutely no proof. But it is peculiar that the inter-bank markets seized up just 2 months before the election as McCain was gaining ground on the Won. While the markets had become too fragile, it takes a lot to make them seize up. Markets seize up because of fear. Why the fear then? Coincidence? I'm still skeptical.

It would take something more than Soros to generate that level of fear and I don't think he could keep his activities quiet this long. There has never been any real investigation of what happened. Why not? The government has not been forthcoming about who's behind all the cyber attacks, though it's pretty clear. It all puts one in a conspiratorial mind.

And like the cyber attacks, it might not be the Chinese government directly. But China is a big place, not a monolith, and there a plenty of folks there who could be doing it for their own enrichment or other reason. That is why it was such a mistake to let them in the WTO.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2011-06-10 09:30  

#9  I had a friend growing up who had been captured by the Chinese during the Korean war. He escaped, the rest of his crew (who were being held separately) didn't and were never released after the end of the war.

The average leftist's freedom to spew mindless snark about the communist/fascist threat was temporarily bought with a lot of sacrifice by by other people, whose names we don't even deign to acknowledge.
Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain   2011-06-10 09:20  

#8  of course China is out to phuque us, hello wake up people!! these people are lying cheating pigs who will stoop to ANY low to achieve their aims, study chinese history and get a grip, we need to phuque them before they phuque us.
Posted by: 746   2011-06-10 09:17  

#7  Yalu Peril IV, more dangerous than Japan, Russia, England. new song, same dance.
Posted by: Black Bart Shick7973   2011-06-10 08:56  

#6  Nimble Spemble wrote:
"China was behind 9/15/08 and will give us a reprise for the 2012 election if we are not electing the preferred candidate. Though this time it might backfire."

NS, this is a theory I haven't seen before, and it is intriguing. Most of the stuff I've seen relating to 9/15 relates to Soros and other wealthy socialist aristocrats in conjunction with union retirement fund managers.

Not being a smartass here, Im truly interested - what evidence do you have of the Chicoms engineering that, either alone or in combo with the groups I mentioned?

Posted by: no mo uro   2011-06-10 07:32  

#5  I keep hearing that China has the most to loose from US faltering. Please could someone explain to me why this would be the case.

In a static analysis, they would lose their $$$ in debt and their market. But they could see this a sunk cost. Look what they would then stand to gain. Clinton and the WSJ gave them the keys to hegemony on a silver platter when they allowed China in the WTO without it having become a democracy. China was behind 9/15/08 and will give us a reprise for the 2012 election if we are not electing the preferred candidate. Though this time it might backfire.

The writer imagines the Chinese to be four feet tall and the Americans shrinking to two feet. And we are living down to those expectations. The Chinese would have to be greater fools not to take advantage of our foolishness. But it is we who have decided to be the fool, they have not forced us. Whether we can change our minds in time is the question.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2011-06-10 07:16  

#4  I keep hearing that China has the most to loose from US faltering. Please could someone explain to me why this would be the case.
Posted by: Kojack   2011-06-10 07:00  

#3  Nah, they just doing that comes natural: exporting a lot and importing a little.
Posted by: gr(o)mgoru   2011-06-10 06:21  

#2  Broadhead6
Exactly! China has the most to lose if the U.S. does decide to default...
Posted by: Bright Pebbles   2011-06-10 04:56  

#1  "Is China Trying to Bankrupt US?"

Why would they need to try...our politicos are doing that well enough on their own...
Posted by: Broadhead6   2011-06-10 03:10  

00:00