|
Some of you TL old-timers may recall I used to write about politics.
I made a few guesses. Some of them turned out wrong. But some of them:
http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/369213-chinas-place-in-asia
It is for these reasons why I view Romney’s Asia policy as inherently more responsible than Obama’s policy, since it draws on this point of view to bring China up the level of a global Great Power rather than a contained, angry, and destabilizing regional one. Most of Romney’s Asia policy draws on the views of Kenneth Lieberthal, Clinton’s China Hand and an able and farsighted diplomat who was able to steer the US from condemning Beijing over Tiananmen to lobbying on China’s behalf for the 2001 WTO deal. What's more, given how much Romney has personally invested in China, his policy should be pretty clear, even if not explicitly stated.
What's more though is that China and the US will likely walk this road, but fitfully, and with substantial risk of backsliding if either of their economies fails to embark on a path of steady growth. =/ Keep our fingers crossed, I guess.
http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/379570-the-coolest-guy-ive-ever-met
3) This machine won't end, absent a tremendous crisis that provided a new "cause" for the country to orient itself around.
His final quote tied it all together: "The Soviets kept us focused, but there's nothing like them now."
http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/359464-china-vs-the-united-states-a-war-scenario
America and China are frenemies. Not rivals, not friends, but "peer competitors". Neither country wants to completely destroy each other, since both share a lot of core/present interests (namely, both nations' economies depend on the other)--but both nations also have mutually incompatible peripheral/future interests.
Are turning out halfway right. And it sucks. I wish I was wrong.
But I was too optimistic then, also. I thought US-China frictions would be driven by Thucydidean dynamics. The truth is though, all politics is local... and the reasons behind recent shifts in elite consensus is much more petty than we ever thought it would be.
Reading the Proud Tower by Tuchman taught me that one lever countries often pull when their established political order is challenged by internal inequality is to construct and orient around external enemies. When the Emperor of Germany had court officials accused of homosexuality; when the French Republic faced the Dreyfuss Affair; when the English faced "suffragette terrorism"; when the Russians and Austro-Hungarians faced demands for ethnic-self-determination; when they all faced socialism - the answer was the same: blame their neighbors. And so, the elites of each society formed a consensus that the only way to maintain their social position was to go full militarist... add in the normal frictions from being in proximity, some security dilemma / game theory dynamics, and new technologies speeding up warfare beyond contemporary cycles of political decision-making, and WW1 resulted.
I covered two of those elements back in 2011/12 and with my novel 2023: the security dilemma and new technologies speeding up the pace of warfare.
Now... after linking how far Sanders went in the Democratic Primary; seeing the rise of far-right and far-left movements among the youth of America (both rooted in lack of access to economic opportunity or sociopolitical relevance), and then hearing Pence's speech to the Hudson Institute and the sudden anti-China turn by Michael Bloomberg and his editorial board, it's not hard to realize that American elites feel some sort of social instability from below, and so they have to go looking for enemies abroad to keep things stable at home.
And so that third rail is in place. All we need is some trigger like the Archduke and we are going to be well and truly fucked.
I'll circle back on this blog post again in five years. I hope the world will prove me wrong.
  
|
I'd think that the US defense of Taiwan as an independent state would have triggered a military reaction similar to Douglas McArthur's driving tanks up to the Yalu River by now. But that hasn't happened. During the Korean War, the Chinese didn't have a nuclear bomb, and to be honest, Mao Tse-Tung didn't really care if the US had atomic weapons. Stalin even sat down and tried to explain to Mao why the Soviet Union wasn't willing to engage in an all-out war with the US, but Mao brushed it aside to say essentially, "It doesn't matter how many people die, as long as we win."
The people leading China are a lot more sane, and a lot more reserved than their revolutionist predecessors, though. China seems willing to trade away Taiwan for a continued peace with the US, and in doing so, becomes more and more tied to the US economically.
Another region in dispute among nuclear powers is Jammu-Kashmir in central Asia. I would argue that Pakistan and India hate each other a lot more than any other rivals with nuclear weapons, but have refrained from starting another war. The prospect of a nuclear conflict between these two countries still seems like a possibility, except that it would be a major loss for both countries.
|
human being are strange animals...
if you asked a human being if they'd rather be "happy" or be "right" ... most would choose to be "right". This is how you get so many people who cling to self-fulfilling prophetic behaviour cycles locking them into living mediocre, mundane lives.
Being unhappy about being right is standard mode for so many humans.
|
I’m still trying to figure out what exactly he was “right” about. His analysis is completely deficient in that fails to account for the Chinese side of the story on declining US/Chinese relations.
|
Hum, I feel like these kind of realist international theories always failed to take into account non-events, you can surely find a lot of time when internal tension where followed by a war, probably in part to create a holy-union in the population, but you can also find a hell of a lot of case that contradict this.
For example we less then 30 years ago from probably the biggest miss prediction of geopolitical theorist with the relatively peaceful and uneventful dissolution of the USRR, in which case the "elite", who lets not forget is neither an unified group nor an omnipotent rational entity, responded to internal tension not by waging war but ratter splitting the country and starting a transition into a market capitalism.
It's easy to see that there is a tension between the Chinese state geopolitical objectives clash with the US, but it's ratter bold to say that these geopolitical objectives will "succeed" in the end to start a war, there's still (always?) a lot of way this could go and sure it could be war but there's no way to know if there's one thing that social science is bad at, it's predicting the future.
Also as a side note, as much as I like the Fallout games, "war changes". It's impossible to make something that would look like a general war theory that would encapsulate as much the North-American native warfare that would almost never escalated farther then a few confrontation, the warfare of territorial expansion of agrarian state, the conflict between the Greek city-states with their tribute system and almost exclusively noble (or "elite" as in being from the elite) army, the geopolitical/religious European war of the start of modernity, the decolonization warfare and the "war of terror" of the 21th century. Sure some aspect are similar, which is was make it possible to say that they are all "war", but they occur in vastly different social and political context and as such have vastly different logic, consequences and realities.
Just like it's impossible to understand religion or economy in a bottle it's impossible to understand war outside of their historical context.
|
On October 22 2018 11:30 xDaunt wrote:
I’m still trying to figure out what exactly he was “right” about. His analysis is completely deficient in that fails to account for the Chinese side of the story on declining US/Chinese relations.
Hey he pointed out China and USA would cooperate to a certain degree while still prioritizing their own interest.
Sanders being labelled far left is ridiculous by European standards too, he's just trying to get stuff which has been done for decades on this side of the Atlantic or in Canada.
Also if there is really a book advocating French antisemitism, English women rights movements and German homophobia were the main reasons of WW1, why would you take it seriously?
Saying we're just an assassination away from world war III is also ridiculous...
Why this blog was featured?
|
he chuckled again, replying that "a man who is not a socialist at twenty has no heart; a man who is still a socialist at thirty has no head."
Surely we can think of a better way to describe the rashness of youth mellowing into conservatism than appealing to literally the worst political economic theory in the history of the world.
Reading the Proud Tower by Tuchman taught me that one lever countries often pull when their established political order is challenged by internal inequality is to construct and orient around external enemies.
I find this thinking facile. 1) It can be applied uncritically to almost any situation. If one principle can be applied, regardless of circumstances, it's probably wrong. 2) It appeals to a utopian idea that we would all live in peace and harmony if only we weren't being manipulated by evil rich people. 3) Different theories can appear to be simultaneously correct, e.g "great man" vs "history from below" theories. Even if you think you see this phenomenon, it doesn't mean other theories aren't equally valid. 4) That theory doesn't even seem to fit this particular situation. China isn't being belligerent because they are trying to bolster a failing society or directing their tension outward (as of yet) but because they are looking to gain resources and economic power.
Now... after linking how far Sanders went in the Democratic Primary; seeing the rise of far-right and far-left movements among the youth of America (both rooted in lack of access to economic opportunity or sociopolitical relevance), and then hearing Pence's speech to the Hudson Institute and the sudden anti-China turn by Michael Bloomberg and his editorial board, it's not hard to realize that American elites feel some sort of social instability from below, and so they have to go looking for enemies abroad to keep things stable at home.
You seem to, intentionally or unintentionally, assign validity to various reasons for conflict. This colors how you interpret the events stemming from those conflicts. I won't go list all of them, but it seems odd that you put serious conflicts side by side with "manufactured" conflicts.
I fear a stable China less than I fear an unstable China. No rapidly industrializing country has escaped a bubble (except maybe for India, that kinda skipped the Industrial Age entirely), and China increasingly looks like a powder keg. The other issue is that China will eventually face a massive population crisis, but, before that, they will have a lot of single, prospectless young men. China's belligerence could increase under these conditions.
|
On October 22 2018 08:48 ninazerg wrote:
I'd think that the US defense of Taiwan as an independent state would have triggered a military reaction similar to Douglas McArthur's driving tanks up to the Yalu River by now. But that hasn't happened. During the Korean War, the Chinese didn't have a nuclear bomb, and to be honest, Mao Tse-Tung didn't really care if the US had atomic weapons. Stalin even sat down and tried to explain to Mao why the Soviet Union wasn't willing to engage in an all-out war with the US, but Mao brushed it aside to say essentially, "It doesn't matter how many people die, as long as we win."
The people leading China are a lot more sane, and a lot more reserved than their revolutionist predecessors, though. China seems willing to trade away Taiwan for a continued peace with the US, and in doing so, becomes more and more tied to the US economically.
That's because the Chinese state has redefined the Taiwan issue such that the status quo (de facto, but not de jure, independence) is not threatening to its legitimacy. But the current US administration seems bent on inching Taiwan towards de jure independence, calculating that sucking up the Chinese state's legitimacy over this issue is a useful way to pressure China into concessions on other issues.
Another region in dispute among nuclear powers is Jammu-Kashmir in central Asia. I would argue that Pakistan and India hate each other a lot more than any other rivals with nuclear weapons, but have refrained from starting another war. The prospect of a nuclear conflict between these two countries still seems like a possibility, except that it would be a major loss for both countries.
Agreed - though, thankfully, just like in China, both the political establishments of India and Pakistan do not have to choose between legitimacy and starting a war. Not yet.
|
On October 23 2018 03:35 Jerubaal wrote:Show nested quote +he chuckled again, replying that "a man who is not a socialist at twenty has no heart; a man who is still a socialist at thirty has no head." Surely we can think of a better way to describe the rashness of youth mellowing into conservatism than appealing to literally the worst political economic theory in the history of the world. Show nested quote +Reading the Proud Tower by Tuchman taught me that one lever countries often pull when their established political order is challenged by internal inequality is to construct and orient around external enemies. I find this thinking facile. 1) It can be applied uncritically to almost any situation. If one principle can be applied, regardless of circumstances, it's probably wrong.
Well, there are plenty of instances where countries don't do that; c.f. the USSR, per the poster above
2) It appeals to a utopian idea that we would all live in peace and harmony if only we weren't being manipulated by evil rich people.
Nope, remember that I said there were 3 reasons for war - and this was only one of them
3) Different theories can appear to be simultaneously correct, e.g "great man" vs "history from below" theories. Even if you think you see this phenomenon, it doesn't mean other theories aren't equally valid.
Of course
4) That theory doesn't even seem to fit this particular situation. China isn't being belligerent because they are trying to bolster a failing society or directing their tension outward (as of yet) but because they are looking to gain resources and economic power.
Since January 2018, the US has been the more belligerent party in the US-China relationship, by far.
Show nested quote +Now... after linking how far Sanders went in the Democratic Primary; seeing the rise of far-right and far-left movements among the youth of America (both rooted in lack of access to economic opportunity or sociopolitical relevance), and then hearing Pence's speech to the Hudson Institute and the sudden anti-China turn by Michael Bloomberg and his editorial board, it's not hard to realize that American elites feel some sort of social instability from below, and so they have to go looking for enemies abroad to keep things stable at home. You seem to, intentionally or unintentionally, assign validity to various reasons for conflict. This colors how you interpret the events stemming from those conflicts. I won't go list all of them, but it seems odd that you put serious conflicts side by side with "manufactured" conflicts.
Most conflicts have both elements of political "manufacturing" and some element of serious interests involved. All I'm saying is that now, in the US, we have the conditions for both, plus a military establishment playing with 21st-century warfighting technologies under a Cold War-era command system (though that last one is probably exacerbated on the Chinese side).
I fear a stable China less than I fear an unstable China. No rapidly industrializing country has escaped a bubble (except maybe for India, that kinda skipped the Industrial Age entirely), and China increasingly looks like a powder keg. The other issue is that China will eventually face a massive population crisis, but, before that, they will have a lot of single, prospectless young men. China's belligerence could increase under these conditions.
Of course. And you hit the nail on the head there - China doesn't need an external enemy at this juncture for the CCP to maintain legitimacy. But if there is a real economic crisis, then the CCP will need one - just as much as the current American elites are searching for one.
What I really fear is that some dark souls in the American establishment want to push the Chinese economy over the edge, so as to precipitate an economic crisis in China that turns into a legitimacy crisis and then either causes a political collapse or limited war that permanently cripples China, while containing the economic (and possibly military) damage to the Asian periphery of the American empire.
The fact that Trump withdrew from the INF and nominated a warhawk (David Stilwell) for State Department Asia desk in the same week tells me the Randall Schriver / Jim Clapper / Harry Harris / Steve Bannon coup detat of US policy towards China is complete... they've found their ambitious up-and-comers (Pottinger) and loyal lieutenants (Stilwell) to carry their policy forwards, and they're ready to let those two, plus Bolton and Trump, take the blame for the blood of potentially millions of East and SE Asians if things go pear-shaped.
This is a morally insane calculus, and this is only analyzing the problem from the "serious security interest" side of the equation... not even looking at how US domestic politics figures into it. Look up the below deleted tweet from (noted liberal intellectual) Matt Yglesias:
https://mobile.twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1003697620462788609?s=19
That's a silly tweet, but I'm sort of coming around to the view that anti-China politics could be the unifying national project we need
|
Shady, here's what I don't really understand. Underlying your posts is this presumption that China is a "good actor" on the world stage or, at the very least, an actor that desires to live within the confines of the current Western world order. Not only is there no factual basis for this, but virtually all of the evidence shows that it simply isn't true. Look no further than its imperialism in Africa for proof of this, and that's before we discuss Chinese aggression in the South China Sea, China's abusively mercantilist trade policies, or its authoritarian (and increasingly totalitarian) regime. Hell, if nothing else, the Chinese certainly see the US as their primary adversary and are acting accordingly. Why you would think that the US shouldn't do the same simply boggles the mind. None of this has anything to do with creating an external enemy to draw national ire for political purposes. It's pure power politics on the international stage.
|
I'm not trying to be combative. You have a lot of good points, but I think you put too much stock into efficient causes.
You mentioned a lot of minor incidents that you thought were manufactured, but you didn't cite any major conflicts that you thought met that criteria. I don't think the actions of individuals matter as much as you think they do.
China will probably become increasingly aggressive in the South China Sea, formerly known as The Philippines, regardless of what the U.S. does or does not do. The U.S. could slightly change the timeline of Chinese hostilities, but it's unlikely that the U.S. will be the deciding factor. The biggest impact the U.S. could have is to deter China long enough for another path to be forged. Sadly, it seems like it's almost a certainty that one of two things will happen: Massive Chinese aggression or China's collapse. The most optimistic scenario is that it will be a soft diminishment instead of a catastrophic collapse and that will curb their aggression over their uncomfortable transitional period.
Also, I don't see any evidence of externalizing problems in U.S. politics. It seems like the Left and Right both agree that our problems are the result of our own sins. For instance, Trump changing trade agreements is more an indictment against previous administrations than it is against the trade partner.
|
|
|
On October 22 2018 08:20 Shady Sands wrote:
Now... after linking how far Sanders went in the Democratic Primary; seeing the rise of far-right and far-left movements among the youth of America (both rooted in lack of access to economic opportunity or sociopolitical relevance), and then hearing Pence's speech to the Hudson Institute and the sudden anti-China turn by Michael Bloomberg and his editorial board, it's not hard to realize that American elites feel some sort of social instability from below, and so they have to go looking for enemies abroad to keep things stable at home.
What makes you think that the far-right and far-left movements have been self-propelled? I’d argue that the ‘American Elite’ has consciously and strongly supported the rise of either one. When half the relevant media outlets blast 24/7 how ‘liberals’ (how that even came to be coined into an offensive term is beyond me) are destroying the country’s economy/values/whatever, while the other half is screaming around the clock about ‘the right’ causing every case of social inequality/gun violence/police brutality/etc., it feels like the ‘elite’ not only does not care about social stability but actively undermines it by allowing the media to be fueling division and in many cases outright hatred.
I vividly remember those long car rides a decade ago when I had the questionable pleasure of listening for three hours straight to Rush Limbaugh, followed by some other sociopath, and ultimately Sean Hannity. All of those can accurately be described as hate-preachers.
Fox News emerged as the leading ‘news’ outlet by using an aggressive, mud-slinging programming that centered around depicting the other side as not only being completely wrong on every issue, but stupid and outright destructive to the country’s well-being. This method has apparently been adopted by CNN by now as well. From whatever else I have seen and heard from other US media outlets hostile speech towards the opposing side seems to be the standard. Point being, the ‘elite’ has done nothing to even try to curb the social division in the US fueled by the media. Thus saying that the ‘elite’ suddenly happens to “feel some sort of social instability from below” and now “has to go looking for enemies abroad” seems inadequate.
That being said, the US has shown that it has no issues finding enemies abroad anyway (Afghanistan, Iraq) and it requires quite a bit of elaboration why they would suddenly be looking for an economically and militarily powerful one.
And so that third rail is in place. All we need is some trigger like the Archduke and we are going to be well and truly fucked.
This statement seems to imply open warfare between two superpowers, which once again would require significant elaboration
a) why the US would do that instead of waging proxy wars like during the cold war.
b) how the Chinese ‘elite’ would possibly hope to benefit from starting such a war against an enemy that has tens of thousands of nuclear warheads.
When the Archduke died all sides believed that they could raise more men and build more artillery shells than their enemies, both of those are not relevant in a nuclear conflict. And in such a conflict having more nuclear warheads than the enemy becomes irrelevant after a certain number.
Ultimately, a major clash between China and the US may just as well happen, but I very much doubt that it would involve open warfare. I also doubt that ‘we’ would be “well and truly fucked” (but it may apply to some poor souls in some Asian/African/maybe even South American country that is irrelevant on the world stage…)
|
|
|
|
|
|
WCS
