The Atlantic correspondent Robert Kaplan is one of America’s most influential geo-political thinkers, if not the most influential. He’s the author of numerous books and policy articles informed by his extensive travels to the most chaotic parts of the world, and even more extensive reading of philosophers and poets of the human condition. He sits on the Defense Policy Board , which advises the Pentagon, and has worked as a consultant to the U.S. military.
In other words, what he thinks has geo-political implications. So what does Kaplan think of China?
It’s clear from his reporting that the U.S. military considers China the number one threat in the Pacific Ocean, which Kaplan calls “America’s private lake.” In his book Hog Pilots, Blue Water Grunts: The American Military in the Air, at Sea, and on the Ground, Kaplan embeds on a destroyer, inside a nuclear submarine, and on a bomber, and what impresses him most is neither the technology nor the power of the military, but the passion and dedication of the soldiers, seaman, and pilots, and the experience and authority of the sergeants and corporals, who are the heart and soul of the U.S. military. While never made explicit, America’s fighting men and women are always learning, collaborating, and preparing themselves for their new enemy: China.
And, for Kaplan, it’s not just the Pacific where the interests of the United States and China will collide.
Kaplan’s most recent book is Monsoon: The Indian Ocean and Future of American Power, which argues that the Indian Ocean is now the nexus of globalization, and thus the center of gravity for geo-politics: Through the Strait of Hormuz, oil is delivered through the Strait of Malacca to fuel the world’s most dynamic economies.
In Monsoon, Kaplan travels to major ports along the Indian Ocean littoral, some of which are being built by Chinese money and labor. Kaplan envisions the Indian Ocean as a major source of conflict between India, which is expanding vertically, and China, which is expanding horizontally. And where they meet is resource-rich Burma, where China is constructing roads to connect its southwest to Burma so that it can break into the Indian Ocean and secure a new route for energy supplies.
As a writer, Kaplan can sometimes be edgy and passionate, but he’s above all careful and nuanced. It can sometimes be hard to catch what he’s saying, but here’s what I think is the subtext of Monsoon: China’s ambition is to become a two ocean blue-water navy, and thus a true global superpower. To accomplish that, China must “Finlandize” the southeast countries of Burma, Thailand, Laos, and Vietnam, as well as take Taiwan back into its fold so that it can finally break into the Pacific. The United States ought to counter by shifting its focus from the Middle East to the Indo-Pacific region, and work with the democracies of India, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesian, and Australia to balance undemocratic China.
But Kaplan presents very little evidence as to why and how China threatens U.S. interests in the Indo-Pacific. He does not visit China for his book, and so can’t see for himself how China may soon be too overwhelmed with environmental degradation, financial mismanagement, and social unrest to concern itself with the seas. And he himself is a canny enough thinker of military matters to know that the Chinese military, even if it were to surpass the United States in number of ships and submarines, lacks the U.S. military’s democratic culture, spirit, and purpose which make American fighting men the best in the world, and the U.S. military machine the most flexible and resilient.
So why does Kaplan consider China a threat? Perhaps it’s because he spends so much time with U.S. military officials that he’s adopted their China paranoia? But I think there’s a deeper psychological reason why Kaplan sees China as a threat: Because he, like so many other American intellectuals, understand deep down that the real threat to America is America itself, that the United States is amusing itself to death with Jersey Shore, Facebook, and the Superbowl.
And, as Kaplan argues passionately and eloquently in his essay “The Dangers of Peace,” which closes his book The Coming Anarchy, it’s this state of lethargic complacency that makes nations shallow and stupid, and which also creates the conditions for catastrophic war:
“After the Napoleonic Wars, many decades of peace in Europe led to rulers who lacked a tragic sense of the past, which caused them to blunder into World War I.
“The solution for such trends is simple: struggle, of one sort or another, hopefully nonviolent. Struggle demands the real facts, as well as real standards of behavior. While governments lie in specific instances during wartime, war ultimately demands credibility, whereas long periods of peace do not; with no threat at hand, lies and exaggerations carry smaller penalties. Struggle causes us to reflect, to fortify our faith, and to see beyond our narrow slots of existence.”
And China is the ideal villain for the United States to struggle against: It’s so big and omnipresent, so aggressive and undemocratic that Hollywood couldn’t have cast a better villain.
Just as nostalgic as the U.S. military for the Cold War, Kaplan is essentially predicting a new Cold War between China and America, and a new existentialist threat that will force the United States to come together and teach its students math.
That’s a romantic idea from a writer who has dedicated his career to questioning the practicality and purpose of romantic ideas.
Here are the closing words of Kaplan’s 1994 book The End of the Earth: A Journey into the Frontiers of Anarchy: “The more I saw of the world, the less I felt I could fit it into a pattern. No one can foresee the precise direction of history, and no nation or people is safe from its wrath.”
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Who Cares
” And he himself is a canny enough thinker of military matters to know that the Chinese military, even if it were to surpass the United States in number of ships and submarines, lacks the U.S. military’s democratic culture, spirit, and purpose which make American fighting men the best in the world, and the U.S. military machine the most flexible and resilient. ”
Democracy is hardly a prerequisite for having good soldiers. What makes the America n military strong is overwhelming technological and monetary advantage, along with extensive experience in waging war across the globe for the past century.
I think the idea that America needs China as a bogeyman has its merits, but to call this a new Cold War is a misrepresentation of the truth. America uses the China threat to whip up patriotic sentiment around election time, just as Putin is doing with the US in Russia. And China, for its part, uses the American threat as a justification for its own policies, such as double-digit military growth and media control (i.e. purging Chinese TV of bad Western influence).
James
The title is interesting in and of itself but it begs the question: If this is only a perceived US threat then why are all of China’s neighbors running to Washington? With the exception of Pyongyang all of the countries on The Pacific Rim are seeking more strategic accomodation with Washington. So why are China’s neighbors so motivated to do so if, after all we are only spectators to a benign “peaceful rise?” If one’s intent is indeed peaceful then why are the neighboring countries seem to not be completely convinced by this?
The author mentions the following in his piece:
“And China is the ideal villain for the United States to struggle against: It’s so big and omnipresent, so aggressive and undemocratic that Hollywood couldn’t have cast a better villain. . .”
It seems that it does not require colourful imagination on the part of Tokyo, Seoul, Manilla, Taipei, Signapore, or heck possibly even Hanoi to consider China big, omnipresent, aggressive and undemocratic. Hollywood, or anyone else, does not have to cast someone for this role. Beijing is quite happy to cast themselves for it. I’m sure the Falun Gong consider the cadres and China a villan. The Tibetans too would probably look at Beijing as a villian. How about the non-Han Chinese citizens of The Western Provinces of China? What of Vietnamese fishing boats or those of The Philipines? Any trawlers been harassed by China recently? Or how about Georgetown’s Men’s Basketball Team having to pull their team off the floor against a PLA Basketball Team during an exhibition sporting event? Even during The Soviet Union, American and Soviet Athletes could compete and not have an altercation like that. It’s not a comforting picture emerging from Beijing. At the moment, it is taking practically no effort on Washington’s side to gain an even deeper strategic foothold in The Asia-Pacific Rim. Again, why are the nations of The Western Pacific, even Burma, are trying to seek deeper accomodation with Washington?
The United States and China are heading for a Cold War. The strategic interests of these two countries do not match at all at the top. At the top of strategic interests there is nothing but deep sources of contention. The question ultimately becomes two-fold in nature, like Japan during it’s “Convulsive Period” of the early 1930’s:
Does China think that it can get more strategic benefit by continuing to participate in the current global order through further integration or do the cadres in Beijing feel that a policy of setting up The Western Pacific and Central Asia as exclusive Chinese Economic Zones serve strategic interests better?
And if it is to exclude all other powers from The Western Pacific and Central Asia then this can only be done with the supremacy of arms. Is China willing to go to war to exclude powers from The Western Pacific and Central Asia?
John Chan
@James,
Your argument is nothing new but a predatory western culture tradition that has been developed since Roman Empire; it always feels it fights just wars, even it is a naked aggressor in a conflict and the just for the wars is built on pure fabrication.
To defend itself against the overwhelm firepower from the USA and its lackeys, China has to build up matching strength, which itself is threatening. And USA leverages such defensive action as a just cause of “siding the weak” for its ever-increasing aggression against China, and wraps its aggression under the pretension of promoting democracy and human rights.
USA is thousands miles away on the other side of the Pacific Ocean, nobody is threatening USA’s homeland, why does USA have to mass 3 quarters of its armed forces to threaten a nation that supports its life style it cannot make it by itself?
Henry003
Leave Singapore out. She is not there to gang up on China
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) said Monday that “Singapore is not a US treaty ally, unlike Japan, Australia or the Philippines”.
The ministry was responding to a Washington Post article which gave the wrong impression that Singapore is a US treaty ally.
The Straits Times reported that the Post article had quoted an unnamed Philippines official as saying that ‘Australia, Japan, Singapore’ were mirroring the Philippines’ move on seeking the expansion of US military presence to counter a rising China.
The Philippines official was quoted as saying that “Australia, Japan, Singapore” were some countries in the Pacific region to embrace Washington as “nobody wants to face China or confront China”.
An MFA spokesperson said that while Singapore has allowed US ships and aircraft usage of some of the Republic’s facilities, this is not a reaction to any recent developments.
“It is a long-standing arrangement dating back to 1990,” the spokesperson said.
Henry003
Aside from Vietnam and Philippine,the rest of South east Asia are neutral in this south sea dispute.they have no bone of contention with China.
People often forget that South east Asia is home to 20 million Chinese immigrant since time immemorial. Most of the elite in Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore are Chinese and they still retain control of the economy in Indonesia,Laos, Cambodia, Myanmar.
So Chinese is a known quantity. It is their neighbor, friend, coworker, boss, even spouses
There is maybe trepidation and anxiety about the economic juggernaut that China is but that is normal. But hate no siree
Fu Man-chu
James continue the red herring questioning which is irrelevant and misleading. I wonder how many people fall for this false argument tactic? Scoring argument points is not the same being correct in analysis, dissection of issues, facts based opinion, and clear understanding of the issue discussed. You get instant approval from the audience in a debate but you are usually not right.
Having said that, I like Jiang Xuejin’s critique on Kaplan’s book. A good and interesting review. Washington’s penchant through people like Kaplan for creating “enemies” is dangerous to world peace. Just like that, overnight, 1.4 billion Chinese are America’s enemies. I wonder if Beijing is aware or realise the enormity and significance of this declaration by Washington? Or for the matter, does East Asian leaders in Japan, Korea and others who value their national pride, dignity, and independence?
Cyrus14
Kaplan is very well known especially to a student of International and Power Politics.
Matthew W. Hall
What about the moral irreconcilability of china and the U.S.? Aren’t their culural ideals and social models mutually exclusive in that they can’t co-exist in the same place at the same time? It never ceases to amaze me how so-called experts can not see that which is in plain sight.
John Chan
It is disappointing that the author could not point out the root of Robert Kaplan’s hostility towards China. The root of Robert Kaplan’s hostility against China is his Anglo-Saxon superiority; he just cannot bear to watch a people who was under the thumb of Anglo-Saxon for the last two hundred years are poising to overtake them. Robert Kaplan is doing all he can to nip in the bud before Chinese can render the Anglo-Saxon into history book like the Romans.
Oro Invictus
@ John Chan
The root of Kaplan’s theories is simple pragmatism based on the notion of xenophobic galvanization as a solution to perceived social malaise; simplistic and nationalistic pragmatism, yes, but hardly anything as base as you suggest.
On the other hand, your hostility towards, well, anyone with even a modicum of civil rationality is borne out of pure bigotry, an utter contempt for anyone you deem inferior, as decreed by the CPC (tacitly or otherwise). The fact you immediately judge people based on ethnicity is a testament to how hollow and self-defeating your exhortations are; you are doing nothing more than projecting you and your self-appointed government’s inadequacies and flaws onto others. If you wished to argue the benefits of authoritarianism with ultra-capitalism over quasi-democratic republicanism with socially-constrained capitalism, that is one thing, but what you are doing is just further highlighting your utter lack of dignity and respect for others.
That said, I find it ironic that you would bring up the Roman Empire as analogous to the “Western” (i.e. any nation which is not an autocracy, dictatorship, or theocracy, which includes the majority of countries, including many of those in Asia) world’s condition, when it is the PRC which far more resembles the declining Roman Empire circa mid third century CE. Spending more on “civil defense” than national defense? Check. Vastly increasing numbers of popular movements of ever greater scale? Check. Rampant corruption which, despite public declarations to the contrary, is rising? Check. Greater restriction of civil liberties in the face of “foreign aggression” and “stability”? Check. Overreaching territorial claims disputed by the majority of claimants? Check. Over-utilization of ill-treated labour (in Rome, slaves and barbarians, in the PRC, migrant workers) to compensate for lack of innovation (entrepreneurial, scientific, or otherwise)? Check (albeit, the PRC’s stifling of this is self-inflicted as part of an unintended consequence to prevent “dangerous” thoughts from emerging). Attempting to leverage said wealth to “force open” new markets? Check. Increasingly using the tactic of marking various officials as scapegoats and removing them (be it via transfer, removal of post, or execution) to placate the masses following various tragedies/atrocities? Check.
Mind you, perhaps late 4th century CE Rome is more apt, given the huge amounts of backlash the PRC is facing on matters of trade issues and how certain facets of the PRC’s relationship with Hong Kong and Taiwan can be likened to that of the West Roman Empire’s with the Eastern Empire. I would ask your opinion of this, John Chan, but since your knowledge of history seems on par with your respect for your fellow man, I doubt I would get much in the way of actual thought beyond the usual spouting of nonsense stranded together with the terms “Imperialist”, “WestPac”, “Predatory” or some other term that wouldn’t look out of place from an insane man’s ravings.
ACT
@Oro Invictus
Thank you. your analysis of John Chan, his rhetoric and the ideology behind it are, sadly, spot on.
As a student of history and college, i often follow articles on here, as they cover the subject matter i’m most interested in; i’ve taken history courses on Modern Japan, East Asia and US-China relations, and so i’m always interested when someone posts an article claiming news about a new US-China “Second Cold War” or some such.
Unfortunately, that assessment of a new cold war is–at least from what i’ve read and observed of China’s cultural history and America’s history–spot on, too.
China–as far as i’ve deduced via books read and newsworthy articles accrued for papers–seems to keep itself constantly trapped in a prison of its own past, chafing for the old glory of the times when it ruled the known world. The only difference between the CCP and the old Chinese empire (this may well be a massive generalization), in my opinon, is the time-frame in which they existed. Both seek power and fortune at the cost of the majority of their people, and both scream equally loudly when someone dares to defy the thought that theirs is a superior race that ought not be trifled with. And of course, both are equally unable to do anything when someone shatters said illusion. Lastly, both the old Chinese Empire and the current Chinese Communist Party sought and now seek global hegemon, something that the united states has (or thinks it has) through a system of global alliances.
It was, after all, the chinese who introduced the west to that term “hegemon”, the concept of an economic and military power without equal, so strong that even the thought of challenging it might be considered a sin. Of course, judging by its treatment of its own people and those lying it what it considers to be its “outer territories” (Tibet and the semi-autonomous regions), perhaps Chinese hegemony might not be such a good thing: mass unemployment, neo-colonization and the displacement of entire populations, the stripping of national militaries and the use of military force to quell popular uprisings…..
so tell me, John Chan, Why would you wish such a world on anyone, even yourself?
John Chan
@Oro Invictus,
China has been supporting American way of life with sweet and blood, and China has no means to threaten American dominance of the world, why does Kaplan have to derive theories to demonize China as a threat to the survival of the USA? Do you think you are excusing his sinister motive rather easily?
Smear others who look at the root of problems does not make the root of the problems goes away. You need to ask the question, USA is thousands miles away on the other side of the Pacific, why is China’s defense which hardly can get far from its coastline a threat to the USA that has been portrayed by Kaplan?
China has been supporting American way of life with sweet and blood, and finance USA with trillions of hard earned cash, why does Kaplan portray such supportive nation to the USA as a enemy to destroy the USA? Which nation in the world gives more support to USA in material and money than China? What is the motive behind Kaplan’s theory to demonize China?
Kaplan turns right into wrong and black into white, it bears the question why does Kaplan do it on something that makes no logical sense, other than racism?
Henry003
Oro invectus your rumbling doesn’t prove anything. You seem to make mountain out of ant mole. All those deficiency like corruption and inequality is normal in developing economy and China is not the worst when it come to corruption . There is no slave labor in china. Even the migrant has the power to withheld their service . And many do because they found job close to their home. contrary to your believe China make great progress in urbanization reaching to 50% now compare to 20% when CCP come to the power. Life is getting better by the day. Irrespective of all the deficiency there is no stomach for Beijing spring. You seem to suffer from Confirmation bias
Confirmation bias is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Confirmation biases contribute to overconfidence in personal beliefs and can maintain or strengthen beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. Poor decisions due to these biases have been found in military, political, and organizational contexts, as well as in the process of getting to know other people.
– http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
Oro Invictus
@ John Chan
Once again, I already explained the why of it (actually, the article did as well, but you seem to be missing this); Kaplan believes the US, to achieve its maximum potential, requires an enemy of some kind to spur competitiveness in the people. In this, the PRC is chosen as its government not only represents an ideological opposite to the US, but also one with sufficient power to represent some type of real “threat” in the eyes of the populace. There is no racism or apparent personal vendetta, it is purely cold calculation (albeit with a nationalistic bias). Virtually all countries do type of “creating a common enemy” and the US nor the PRC is any exception. If I may, I suggest some reading on the matters of Hegelian dialectics, in particular the nature of thesis-antithesis synthesis.
That said, do I agree with him? Certainly not. His pragmatism is unfortunately under the employ of patriotism, something which cannot, by its definition, serve the good of all people. In the long-term such a strategy serves no one, simply ensuring the rifts in human societies remain; unfortunately, in the short-term, such a strategy does have some “benefits” when it comes to the bolstering of nation-states’ powers, which is why it is so often utilized.
@Henry 003
The phrase you are looking for is “Mountain out of a mole hill”. In any case, you’ve completely missed the point of my post, which was to highlight how poor a choice it was for John Chan to compare other nations to the declining Roman Empire when such a comparison works much better with the PRC. Also, you will note I never said the PRC had slave labour, though the choice for migrant workers to either work for scraps or starve is hardly better. What’s more, urbanisation is an extraordinarily poor measure of social progress; particularly when you consider that many (if not most) of those people have been moving to the cities not because of better opportunities opening there, but because their livelihoods at their previous places of residence were ruined by the PRC’s various policies, forcing them to find work in the cities.
Also, judging by the increasing numbers of mass incidents in the PRC, your claim that “Things are getting better here” seems extremely hollow; the current mass protests in Tibet certainly do not appear to accept the PRC’s line in this. Likewise, considering that even the Corruption Perceptions Index (which is notorious for underestimating levels of corruption, particularly in countries which restrict information flow [i.e. the PRC]) places the PRC at 75th place (with 1st being the least corrupt), an extraordinarily poor rating; true, it isn’t the worst, but then I never said it was, did I?
Also, your understanding of confirmation bias, aside from the baseline association of events as supportive to preconceived conclusions, is quite lacking. In particular, your failure to understand the principles of non-malleable schema means you really should not try and call others under the influence of confirmation bias when you clearly don’t have a firm grip of the complete principle itself. In any case, it is a moot point, since you based that entire tirade off of the misconception that I was actually utilizing the declining Roman Empire as a completely interchangeable predictive model for the PRC.
No, if you had actually taken the time to read my posts, here and elsewhere on this site, you would see I deal purely in probability outcomes based on historical precedents in tandem with psychological profiles for both societies and individuals; while I (along with every other person), lack the ability to plot the exact course of events, I can form probable conclusions to events.
In this regard, the PRC, which resembles a thousand other autocracies, whose “economic miracle” has occurred many times before in China and elsewhere (sometimes with even more dramatic effects), whose various policies mirror failed attempts at power propagation (albeit synthesized into a unique governance model), and whose constant failure to anticipate the effects of repression and confrontation upon the human psyche becomes more and more egregious, well… Let’s just say that if the PRC actually manages to survive without becoming something akin to a macrocosm of North Korea, it would be a first in world history. Given the CPC has already made so many of the mistakes that were made with similar autocracies in the past, and whose general effects fell within predictive models, there is little cause for them to be hopeful.
I admit, of course, that I do abhor the PRC Government, as it represents the antithesis of the ideals of socialism I hold to be the best chance at humanity’s future; that government’s constant disregard for human life and dignity in the pursuit of power goes in the face of the core values virtually all non-self-destructive cultures hold dear. However, while I accept that all people are subject to bias, including myself, the fact that what I value is the sustainment and flourishing of all human life limits any obfuscatory effects upon my aforementioned models; I have no social, political, or cultural allegiances beyond that of humanity itself.
If the PRC actually lived up to half of the non-nationalistic ideals it espouses I would be defending it right now, for it would be a government that seeks to better humanity and would be well-suited to survive in the future (at least in its capacity as a government, though in the long-run any such system of authority would have to give way for humanity’s survival and prosperity); however, this is not the case. In any case, I have no need to prove myself; I don’t presume to have all the answers beyond the belief in the equality and value of human life.
Henry003
Oro Invectus I find your claim that PRC resembled Roman empire is ridiculous
PRC is nowhere close to Roman empire.The economy is surging, Now did you know the GDP/capita in 1950 is around $500 and now $6000
Tell me which country has improve the life of 1.3 billion people in such a short time .Now if CCP can survive GLF and Cultural revolution, all those incidents that you listed are child play. You use unrelated news to predict the downfall of PRC now that is what I called interpret ambiguous evidence to supporting their existing position
People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position
Oro Invictus
@Henry003
It’s good to see you, once again, completely missed the point of what I said and are continuing to ramble on aimlessly. Honestly, both of your posts here are testaments to denial, xenophobia, and projecting.
Leonard R.
The author starts out with a childish appeal to authority argument. This is very common with PRC contributors here.
‘Kaplan is important. Kaplan said X. Therefore X is important too.’
Then he moves on to another meme we see a lot from PRC writers here,
America is too decadent. It is “amusing itself to death”
And how does he support this argument? By citing Robert Kaplan of course.
And that completes the circle he the author has drawn for us.
Most Americans don’t know Robert Kaplan from Charlie Chaplin. And they don’t care a fig about
what Robert Kaplan has to say.
The Cold War analogy is flawed. A lot of writers use it anyway though. And this particular author,
a HS principal in Beijing, never seems to pass up the opportunity to restate what we all have heard
in the echo chamber already.
A cold war? The US did not trade with the Soviets. It was a hostile foreign power.
And a nation should not trade with another nation that has pledged to destroy it.
Trade only strengthens the enemy.
So if a cold war is on the horizon with the PRC, the US should not be trading with it.
Move it over to the part of the tariff schedule currently occupied by North Korea & Iran.
From my POV, a cold war would be a step back from the brink in US/PRC relations.
It would be an improvement.
Reason
@Leonard R
Bang-on
A Cold War would be an improvement – NATO and the US had a much better relationship with the USSR military than it does with the PLA.
Reason
@Jiang Xueqin
Isn’t General Liu Yuan on exactly the same crusade in China as the one you say Kaplan is on in the US?
Crusading to wake up the youth of the country by fear mongering.
I’d say…….
shen liang
This is a very odd article. First, it’s a review of a book that’s considerably dated, leading me to believe that the author just stumbled upon it and hasn’t read it very well.
Second, it appears to misquote the Kaplan when it suggests his view is that the Pacific is in fact America’s “private lake” (rather than that he was indicating the apparent presumptiveness of American policy).
Third, the author acts as though Chinese generals aren’t far more aggressive and boistrous in their support of the idea of the US as a threat. Reading books like 中国梦 and C形包围, it’s impossible not to come to the realization that Chinese military officials not only regard the US as a threat, but dream to the point of obsession about defeating the US in a conflict. Let me remind you, these authors are unhealthy types who claim China is the only nation which doesn’t have “original sin” and will therefore lead the world into a new age according to a “divine kingly way” (王道主义)! What reasonable person wouldn’t see such delusion, particularly when it is tied to nuclear weapons proliferation, as a threat?
And finally, as James notes above, the US is hardly the only nation in the world that sees China as a threat. In fact, nearly all of its neighbors do. In fact, what John Chan misses in his response to James was recorded in James Lampton’s The Three Faces of Chinese Power: according to PLA’s own researchers, since the time of the Xia Dynasty, China has fought more than 1/3rd of all of the wars in the world. To pretend that China’s neighbors don’t know this, when they have been the immediate victims of such aggression, and to pretend that they are all just “lackeys” of the US, is the type of sheer stupidity with which we Chinese often console ourselves.
ACT
would you mind explaining you last point further?
i can honestly say that you’ve interested me.
in regards to the opinion of Chinese generals and US generals, when do you think that this will all come to a head? we have two nations–one of which is perhaps the oldest in the world and the other which is a relatively young nation–who both seem to have a very notable history of deeming themselves morally, culturally and racially superior to all others on the face of the earth. Both the United States and China have also survived via the forced absorption, exclusion or outright genocide of other peoples.
in simple terms, you have an unstoppable force (the United States in conventional conflicts) vs an immovable object(China throughout the ages). The two are bound to come to conflict at one point or another, something that i would not wish on anyone, as the ensuing war would result in the loss of millions, perhaps billions, of lives.
papushisun
>>The solution for such trends is simple: struggle, of one sort or another, hopefully nonviolent. Struggle demands the real facts, as well as real standards of behavior.
…
That’s a romantic idea from a writer who has dedicated his career to questioning the practicality and purpose of romantic ideas.<<
It's a conservative idea. Corey Robin outlines in his book the Reactionary Mind, how conservatives view such violent struggle as a way to legitimise their rule or their right to rule and to beat down any pesky opponents like liberals and communists. By engaging in such a conflict with China the US can once again regain it's place as the "leader of the free world". Survival of the fittest if you will. Right now the US is in a very confused state with it's economy in the doldrums and it's neverending wars against very fluid enemies.
That's why conservatives like Kaplan want so fervently, a clash between the US and China.
Passerby
@who cares
“…What makes the America n military strong is overwhelming technological and monetary advantage, …”
I agree. The American military has NO matching skills to fight even ragtag armies like the Viet Cong and the Taliban, what they do have and the only thing they have, is overwhelming fire power. The American military can never ever win a war of which the fighting is based on sheer courage, skills and tactics, given roughly equal fire power on both sides.
ACT
@ Passerby
i would argue that ANY conventional force is vunlerable to this; China itself invaded Vietnam within 15 years after the US left, and got the same result that much faster; a humiliating defeat and a forced retreat. a conventional army that bases itself on legal conventions on the treatment of civilians can never hope to root out an asymmetric force that effectively melds with the local civilian population. The only way you would be able to quell such a force is to do what the Nazis did in world war II: “if you don’t cooperate, you die. for every one of our soldiers dead, we kill 100 of your countrymen, starting with your loved ones”. the only way you would be able to do otherwise is if you basically blanketed the country with aircraft that had magnetometers strong enough to detect small metallic concentrations from high altitudes, such as individual weapons. Deprive the populace of weaponry and they have no way to harm you.
Passerby
@Reason
“…Isn’t General Liu Yuan on exactly the same crusade in China as the one you say Kaplan is on in the US?…”
But there is NO moral equivalence between the two. Kaplan is advocating for aggression and Liu Yuan is advocating for defence.
c.j.
@Passerby,
“But there is NO moral equivalence between the two. Kaplan is advocating for aggression and Liu Yuan is advocating for defence.”
Let me point out some parallels that are happening in North Korea. On the pretext of potential aggression from the US, North Korea has built up its military at the expense of depriving its people of food and basic necessities.
While in the case of China, defence against potential US aggression or expansion could be real, but how the CCTV is portraying current US “engagement” in the Pacific smacks of fear mongering with its people. Although not explicitly mentioned, it kind of justifies its current censuring of Facebook and other “western” social media as bad influence with evil intentions.
The problem with China now is its inability to face up to its shortcomings squarely, and is quick to point to some “western/ foreign conspiracies” for incidents ranging from Tibetan riots in Sichuan, to the bloggers’ criticisms of Chinese government officials on Weibo.com, to a Hong Kong survey that revealed Hong Kongers don’t really feel their affiliation with the Mainland.
In some ways, the Chinese government seems to be telling its people,”don’t criticise your government, because there’s a dangerous threat out there, so we have to remain in harmony and be united as one”. It seems to be justifying its moral authority by giving protection to its people against external hostilities, and then using that as a pretext to dampen internal criticisms about the government.
Passerby
@c.j.
With due respect, your logical reasoning is flawed. First, I was comparing the core and moral essence of Kaplan’s idea to Liu Yuan’s, which is a separate matter from that a third party; be it the CCP or the hawkish and morally challenged Neocon’s trying to capitalize on someone’s ideas. Secondly, if the CCP is not doing a good job to look after its people, then it’s up to the Chinese people and no one else to decide what to do about it; even some very vocal critics of the CCP would still have grave concern over the US containment and encirclement policy towards China. Again, there is NO moral equivalency between China’s lack of political progress versus the US’ aggression towards China. Last but not least, the reasons for China’s lack of political progress may be debatable, but the US aggression towards China is unquestionable, its sole purpose is not even based on national interests (although it doesn’t mind picking up some along the way) but on the pure psychology of wanting to dominate for the sake of domination. When was the last time a drunk was aware that he was intoxicated?
Lung Sha Shou
That is very very slippery of you Jiang Xueqin to indicate that you agree that even if “the Chinese military. . .were to surpass the United States in number of ships and submarines, lacks the U.S. military’s democratic culture, spirit, and purpose which make American fighting men the best in the world, and the U.S. military machine the most flexible and resilient”
So you are saying, that the US will defeat China easily and that your poor Asian countrymen, even with the best weapons in quality and quantity, could never be a threat? Doing the work of your masters very nicely. It’s a pity that your colleagues in the PLA and PLAN don’t think that way and that they are preparing to fight and win a war with the greatest expansion in peacetime ever seen.
It really is a lame strategy. People who read widely on China are amazed that the US as enemy figures in the thinking of even their department of agriculture to say nothing of the citizenry who have been carefully fed a diet of selective information encouraging hatred of other countries.
Your choice of strategy is fascinating, you elect to pretend to be awed by Kaplan – I’m surprised you did not mention his Atlantic Monthly article.
The rubbish you spout should be seen as such by anyone who remembers how the “hairy white apes” and “short-sighted yellow men with buck teeth” regarded each other and how both though the other side was hopeless and unable to fight because they did not have the esprit de corps and training you breathlessly mention. Well they sure did make a bloody mess of each other didn’t they?
Appealing to American narcissism and pride in arms is kind cute. What, you are saying that the Chinese military is a limp wristed pack of pansies who are going to let China’s national pride be deflated by the big tough smart Americans?
Gimme a break.
Your country threatened mine with nuclear arms only recently “be careful you are within strategic missile range”. What you are saying is objectionable, facile nonsense.
Adriano V
All very interesting comments & contradictory viewpoints that are good for democratic thinking/debate. However, one point I would like to make as an “Owl” not as a “Hawk” or a “Dove”, is that in any impending War (God Forbid!) between the US & China there will be NO winners. The losing side or the country that feels it is seriously threatened will use its Nukes. So let’s hope the Diplomats & the Governments of both the Superpowers would always be wise to decide what is really good for their respective nation & people. My fear is the Military Hawks could be too powerful & rough-shod the Civilian Leadership. Remember Tojo & his Army lackies in WW II?