India Outside : China

Showing posts with label China. Show all posts

Thursday, 9 July 2015

India joining China-led bloc a boost for a 'New Asia'

By Mubasshir Mushtaq

MUMBAI, India

India attends the meeting of a China-led security bloc in Russia on Friday as an observer state but it does so with the hope of joining up as a full member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).

India first applied to join in 2014, apparently as part of the country's attempts to diversify its foreign policy under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who has spent his first year in power in a whirl of foreign visits aimed at opening new partnerships.

And Analysts have welcomed the move, saying it could allow India to help carve out a "new Asia".

Pratinav Anil, a scholar on Europe and Asia at Paris’s Sciences Po, told Anadolu Agency that India's membership "makes sense" because the SCO was set up to settle border disputes between China and it's neighbors, a category India fits into.

He also emphasized that though the grouping -- which includes Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan -- describes itself as political and economic, it is focused mostly on defense and counter-terrorism in a similar framework to NATO.

“I think that there is no contradiction in a democratic India being part of the SCO, which has a large number of totalitarian or single-party countries,” Anil said. “India has military interests in Dushanbe [in Tajikistan] and economic interests in a number of Central Asian Republics - being part of the ‘New Asia’ that SCO is carving would only help India integrate with the region and would create a platform for the countries to align their interests in the most mutually-friendly manner.”

Mumbai-based foreign policy analyst Harish Nambiar agreed that despite India being considered the world's largest democracy and having never had a military government, unlike the other members states and fellow prospective member Pakistan, there should be no issues in aligning their interests.

“I think we should get over this obsessive predicating on democracy whenever we discuss international geopolitics. It is a Cold War shibboleth,” Nambiar told Anadolu Agency.

He pointed to Brazil and South Africa, members of the BRICS economic grouping, and flaws in their democracies as well as in India itself.

“The South African democracy too is not sufficiently satisfactory, Indian democracy too is mystifyingly different from the time when ‘spreading democracy’ was a major slogan,” Nambiar said, adding that the creation of new international and regional alliances has been the result of shifting global power.

“What all the countries that constituted the third world in the aftermath of World War II and now populate the ‘emerging’ and ‘frontier’ economies have learnt is that foreign policy is an enmeshing of national interests,” Nambiar said. “India will and has been a natural part of this new world order that is emerging organically.”

Anil said that one of the many agendas of BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) and SCO is to challenge American dominance but that India, despite its membership, will likely continue a position of non-alignment in order to keep open partnerships with all sides.

“BRICS would like to challenge America by providing an alternate system of funding independent of the World Bank, IMF system, they may want to contest positions that American companies have in Central Asia and Africa,” Anil said.

“Since this is no Cold War platform, India can safely continue its non-alignment while being a part of both platforms, while being an ally of America in terms of intelligence, military, nuclear and economic cooperation," he said, adding that India could use its membership to strengthen its relationship with the U.S. “Rather than alienating the Americans, it might just be the very reinforcement tool that India is seeking.”

Though China has traditionally been a rival of India, and supported India's other rival Pakistan, foreign policy analyst C Raja Mohan noted that it may support India's application to the SCO to prevent the country from moving closer to the U.S.

"Beijing may not want to push India into a US-led coalition against China. Its support to the full membership of India and Pakistan in the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation is part of this new calculus," he wrote in the daily Indian Express on Monday.

“The Russian and Chinese presidents, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, would certainly want to draft Modi as part of the Eurasian continental alliance they are building,” Mohan wrote in another article on Tuesday. “Delhi will need to make some difficult judgments on where its interests might lie when push comes to shove among the great powers.”

With Pakistan also pushing for membership of the SCO, Anil said that it would be a "fatal mistake" to include one of the two countries at the expense of the other, while Nambiar thought there was actually a benefit to having both involved.

“It is perfectly fine that India and Pakistan are both likely to be on the high table,” Nambiar said, adding that membership of the SCO itself would not give greater leverage over one or the other in the India-Pakistan rivalry. “It spreads the risks, economically. And, that is good geopolitics too for India as well as Pakistan."

A prize in Central Asia

Anil said that groupings with central Asia and China's "Silk Road" projects were ways for emerging non-Western powers to counter the West's increasing influence in the region, adding that its vast natural resources would be a “prize” for China, Russia and India.

Turkmenistan has the world’s fourth largest gas reserves, while Kazakhstan is the world’s largest uranium producer.

“India stands to benefit significantly if they can tap into this region,” Anil said, adding that Indian company Oil and Natural Gas Corporation is already active there and India has a military base in Tajikistan. “It is evident that India’s commitment to the region is quite strong.”

He added that India, by eyeing economic and energy cooperation with the SCO, could ensure it gains from any potential future economic union in the region.

Monday, 15 June 2015

China, Pakistan CPEC Agreement Complicates Geopolitics

As the diplomatic relationship between China and the United States continues to evolve, the East Asian nation also has reason to cosy up to Pakistan. In recent months, the government of Pakistan have made certain decisions which have inevitably led to the country being drawn further into China's geopolitical attention.

China-Pakistan CPEC Agreement

Traditionally, China and Pakistan have had a relatively profitable relationship. For over half a century, diplomatic relations between the two countries were pretty warm and friendly. However, the recent unveiling of the 2,900 km China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) during a visit to Pakistan by Chinese President Xi Jinping has had a significantly positive influence over the relationship.

The project in question is worth $46 billion, and involved as part of its remit is the construction of roads, railroads and power plants. This is an extremely broad-based infrastructure project, which will take 15 years to complete. Although this was a particularly significant landmark in Pakistan-China relations, it can also be seen in the wider context of numerous other agreements in the fields of military, energy and infrastructure in particular.

CPEC is one of numerous bilateral agreements being initiated in the world at the moment which is of geostrategic importance. CPEC is also buttressed by some earlier agreements between the two nations, ensuring that its qualitative importance is increased. In April of this year, China was granted operation rights to the port of Gwadar on the Indian Ocean, in a strategically important location of the heart of the Persian Gulf. In exchange for this privilege, Beijing is later expected by analysts toINVEST

over $1.5 billion in the region.

CPEC to offer China economic benefits

Gwadar will be the point at which the CPEC project begins, and winds its way down to Kashgar in Western China. This will be extremely beneficial for theOIL

requirements of China, as once the CPEC project is operational and the port comes into the auspices of the East Asian country, it will be able to transport a significant amount of oil through the port. Naturally this will help meet the energy requirements of the world's most populous nation, but it will also serve the vital purpose of saving billions of dollars, not to mention precious time and manpower. It has also been noted by observers of the region that China will now be able to circumnavigate the potentially vulnerable Malacca Strait.

In short, Gwadar will rapidly play an extremely important role in China's land and maritime operation, with the East Asian nation also expected to utilize it for silk exportation and importation. This new network will link China to central Asia and beyond, and will become of critical economic importance to the rapidly industrializing nation.

Another vital aspect of the CPEC project to note is that although Gwadar is being constructed as a commercial port, in the future it could be possible to develop it into a naval facility. This would unquestionably lead to maritime competition in the Indian Ocean.

CPEC complicates China-India relations

Although China has been an obvious beneficiary of this agreement, it is pretty obvious that Pakistan would not enter into it without gaining something in return. Thus, another rather less publicized aspect of this CPEC arrangement has been the Asian subcontinental nation’s purchase of eight diesel-powered attack submarines. Although this conjures up images of nuclear weapons, it is important to emphasize that these are conventionally harmed, but it nonetheless represents Pakistan upping the ante of its military provisions.

Once Pakistan has purchased these submarines, then serious complications would result in any attempt of India to blockade Karachi or Gwadar. The sale would further cement China as Pakistan’s principal arms provider, and complicate its relationship with the Asian subcontinent.

The immediate economic benefits for China are obvious; Pakistan is already the destination of 60 percent of Chinese arms sales. But the obvious tension between India and Pakistan, and the fact that China had previously forged a favorable relationship with China, will complicate the diplomatic position of this nation of over one-billion people.

China has been happy to welcome India into the BRICS grouping of nations, but it may be increasingly indifferent about the prospects of India considering its recent economic malaise. China quite obviously benefits from a close and bilateral relationship with Russia, but with India desperately struggling against its huge economic, demographic and infrastructure issues, it could be that China now views this relationship as less beneficial than it once was.

The geopolitical implications of CPEC

Meanwhile, China's interest in deepening involvement with Pakistan is neither new nor particularly difficult to understand. With the United States having ended official military operations in Afghanistan in 2015, its interest in the region has declined somewhat, and China has effectively stepped into the vacuum created by America's diminishing interest in Pakistan and the Asian subcontinent.

Thus, the East Asian nation has increased its long-term economic and strategic interest in Pakistan with the aim of strengthening its position in the world. In accordance with this overall strategy, China's political leaders have been prepared toINVEST

in Pakistani infrastructure, a decision which has obviously met with approval in the country that has struggled with economic and terrorism-related issues in recent years. The question which would obviously arise for policymakers in Washington is how this project will affect American interests in the region.

The completion of this CPEC project would also enable China to link up with its significant economic andOIL

interests in neighboring Afghanistan. It is thus of interest that the former Afghanistan president, Hamid Karzai, has recently explicitly warned China and Russia of dangers emanating from ISIS involvement in Afghanistan. It could be that China is moving to cement its interest in the region at the moment with the CPEC project, while one can also see Afghanistan being a significant theater of conflict in the future between the Anglo-American old word order and the new BRIC-based superpowers.

Thus, the CPEC project may not be particularly common knowledge in the Western world at the moment, but it will almost inevitably play a role in a wide variety of geopolitical issues that will play out on the world stage in the coming years.

Tuesday, 2 June 2015

A Critique of US “Grand Strategy toward China” Seven Mistaken Assumptions, Presumptions and Prescriptions

“We will have a very strong (military) presence, very strong continued posture throughout the region to back our commitments to our allies, to protect and work with our partners and to continue ensuring peace and stability in the region, as well as back our diplomacy vis-à-vis China on the South China Sea”.
David Shear, US Department of Defense’s Assistant Secretary for Asian and Pacific Security Affairs.
Indian President Modi “seals $22 billion of deals on China visit... China had already promised $20 billion of infrastructure investment during (Chinese President) Xi’s visit to India last year”. Financial Times (5/18/165, p. 4)
Introduction
The highly influential Council on Foreign Relations recently published a Special Report entitled, “Revising US Grand Strategy toward China”, (Council on Foreign Relations Press: NY 2015), co-authored by two of its Senior Fellows, Robert Blackwill and Ashley Tellis (‘B and T’), which proposes a re-orientation of US policy toward China. The Report a policy for buttressing ‘US primacy in Asia’ and countering what they describe as “the dangers that China’s geo-economic and military power pose to US national interests in Asia and globally”. The Report concludes by listing seven recommendations that Washington should follow to re-assert regional primacy.
This essay begins by discussing the basic fallacies underpinning the Report, including outdated and dangerous presumptions about US power and presence in Asia today, and the authors’ incoherent, contradictory and unrealistic prescriptions.
Mistaken Assumptions about Past and Present US Policies to China
Blackwill and Tellis (‘B and T’) start out with the preposterous claim that contemporary US policy toward China has been driven by its positive “effort to ‘integrate’ China into the liberal international order”. This is a gross misrepresentation of Washington’s past and current efforts to subvert the Chinese Communist government and to undermine its state- directed transition to capitalism.
Ever since the end of the Second World War, and especially since the Chinese Civil War (1945-49), which brought the Chinese Communist Party to power, the US has poured billions of dollars in military aid to the retreating Nationalist regime and to finance the bloody Korean War (1950-53) – with the open goal of overthrowing the Chinese communist government. When US forces briefly reached the Chinese-Korean border, provoking a Chinese response, Washington threatened to unleash nuclear weapons on the Chinese. For the next two decades, the US maintained a naval and air embargo against the world’s most populous state, an insane policy which was only reversed by President Nixon’s re-establishment of diplomatic and commercial relations in 1973.
When the veteran Chinese leader, Deng Xiaoping embarked on a state-managed transition to capitalism, Washington adopted a two-track policy of encouraging China’s rulers to ‘open their markets’ to US multi-national corporations, while financing and backing pro-US liberal activists seeking to overthrow the Communist government (the so-called Tiananmen Square Uprising) as well as the secessionist Tibetan and Uyghur insurgencies in western China.
Far from trying “to integrate China into the liberal international order”, Washington attempted to replicate the decade-long chaotic and destructive “transition to capitalism” which took place with the dissolution of the USSR under Mikhail Gorbachev. During the disastrous US-backed regime of Russian President Boris Yeltsin – the ‘lost decade’ (1990-1999) - living standards for the average citizen plunged 70% and Russia was transformed from an advanced superpower to a ravaged vassal state. Beijing’s rulers took careful stock of the grotesque pillage of the former USSR and rejected US plans to replicate their ‘Russian success’ and integrate China as a vassal state within the international capitalist system.
Washington’s sanctions and boycott policy, following the defeat of its Tiananmen Square proxies, was of no avail: Washington failed to stop the massive influx of US multinational corporations into China. Its punitive measures had no impact on China’s political stability and unprecedented economic growth.
Washington’s policy supporting China’s entry into the World Trade Organization encouraged China to open up to US investors, but US policy makers did not understand how the Chinese state’s carefully calibrated mix of dependence on foreign capitalist investment and technology with their adoption, assimilation, and autonomous expansion of endogenous Chinese expertise would create a such a massive independent economic superpower.
Washington’s ‘penetration and conquest strategy’, dubbed by B and S as its ‘integration into the international order’, ultimately failed, despite frequent attempts to undermine the Chinese state regulations and controls on foreign capital. The US’ efforts to subordinate (“integrate”) China into its burgeoning Asian empire was unsuccessful.
During this period, China expanded into world markets, harnessing Western capital to its national goals. It borrowed and improved on US technology to develop a high growth model, exceeding the US growth rate by 600%!
For over two decades, China grew exponentially, accumulating hundreds of billions of dollars in foreign reserves, while the US economy ran-up monstrous trade deficits with Beijing. The US had embarked on a series of prolonged wars while converting its economy from productive to finance capitalism and needed to borrow vast sums from China in the form of sales of Treasury notes or face a major domestic financial crisis.
In essence (and not noted by ‘B and T’), China ‘integrated’ into the international economic order as a productive, creditor state, at the same time the US was reduced to financial–debtor status and lost its global economic primacy while pursuing its unpopular wars in the Middle East.
It was not the ‘failure’ of liberal US market policies that propelled China forward to primacy in Asia, as ‘B and T’ argue in their essay, but Washington’s multi-trillion-dollar wars in South Asia, the Middle East and North Africa and its wholesale conversion to Wall Street speculation, which caused the US to lose its primacy in Asia. ‘B and T’s’ claim that US ‘market liberalism’ helped China to emerge as the economic superpower in Asia is a flimsy pretext for ignoring real causes and now promoting an even greater level of US militarism in the region. Unfortunately, their muddle-headed diagnoses and militarist proposals strongly influence the Obama Administrations policy decisions!
Blackwill and Tellis’s unwillingness to recognize China’s peaceful rise to economic supremacy in Asia leads them to rely on a purely ideological construct to bolster their militaristic argument for intensifying “the US naval and air presence in the South and East China Seas and accelerating the US ballistic-missile defense (sic) posture” in the Pacific. ‘B and T’s a priori ideological presumptions lead them to declare that “China is a danger to US Asian interests”, ignoring elementary Chinese vital national interests in having open and secure access to vital waterways leading to their Asian markets and sources of raw materials. At no point does ‘B and T’ identify a single move implemented by China, which has threatened the open seaways. Nor do they identify a single overt or covert threat by China toward the US. While ‘B and T’ fantasize about China’s military threats, they suffer a severe case of amnesia with regard to overt US attacks, invasions, and occupations of China’s Asian neighbors. Over a dozen such military assaults have been launched by Washington in the region, which ‘B and T’ conveniently . . . omit.
‘B and T’s evocation of a “China threat” is a crude ploy to justify further US military encirclement of China, in line with their policy recommendations. The US has recently dispatched B-1 bombers and surveillance planes to Australia and threatens to attack China’s base and port construction on its off-shore shoals and island territories. Equally ominous, US officials arrested a visiting Chinese academic attending a conference claiming he was part of a plot stealing ‘dual purpose’ high tech secrets.
Contradictions and Incoherence of B and T Policy Recommendations
B and T policy recommendations for securing US primacy in Asia are contradictory and incoherent. For example, they recommend that the US “revitalize the economy” and promote “robust growth” as a first priority, but then demand a “substantial increase” in the enormous US military budget. They advocate limits on the sale of civilian technology (so-called “dual” use) and the exclusion of China from US-sponsored Asian trade networks like the ‘Trans-Pacific Partnership’ (TPP).
Most experts openly acknowledge that the huge US ten-trillion dollar military spending over the past two decades has destroyed any possibility for ‘robust growth’ of the US economy. ‘B and T’s recommendations for even more military spending can only make matters worse by diverting public and private capital away from economic growth. This is what undermines the United States strategic future in Asia!
‘B and T’ advise Washington “to expand Asian trade networks” . . . by excluding China . . . the largest investment site and market for the leading ‘500’ US multi-national corporations! In fact, when Obama, in line with ‘B and T’ recommendations, loudly refused to participate in the Chinese-sponsored ‘Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, all of the US major Asian “partners”, except Japan, ignored Washington and joined the AIIB! China is unquestionably the leading economic partner for all Asian countries and none of the bellicose rhetoric that ‘B and T’ spout is going to erode those essential realities.
In fact ‘B and T’s proposal to eliminate ongoing trade with China of so-called ‘dual purpose’ technological exports will further isolate the US from its much-ballyhooed ‘Asian partners’ who are especially eager to ‘add value’ to their exports. In sum, ‘B and T’s recommendations to US policy makers will guarantee an anemic, not a ‘robust’, growth.
B and T proposals are guided by a strictly military logic, contrary to advancing US trade networks.
B and T (and the Obama regime) propose “to reinforce” what they call the Indo-Pacific partnership via a “build-up (of) the power-political capabilities of its friends and allies on China’s periphery”. Whatever ‘B and T’ meant by “power-political capabilities” they certainly did not take into consideration India’s drive for economic development and long-term, large-scale investment and trade agreements. In terms of trade and development deals, the meager results on the heels of Obama’s recent visit to India demonstrate just how shallow the administration’s policy towards the subcontinent really is.
The Indo-Chinese economic and development partnership far surpassed in size and scope any of the vacuous proposals put forth by ‘B and T’ to the Obama Administration. In mid-May 2015, Indian President Modi signed a $22 billion-dollar business deal with China on top of the massive $20-billion dollar Chinese infrastructure investment agreement in 2014. $42 billion-dollars of Chinese investment and trade deals with India have pulled the rug out from under any Obama regime plans to enlist India into its anti-China campaign and military provocations. The reality of Indian-Chinese economic deals shows just how absurd ‘B and T’ policy recommendations are.
President Modi put the ‘nail’ in the coffin of ‘B and T’s, “US Grand Strategy toward China” in his last speech in China after his most successful visit: “I strongly believe that this century belongs to Asia”. Lest it be thought by any other Kissinger protégé, (Blackwill is a Henry Kissinger Senior Fellow), that the deepening Indo-China relation is a mere passing phenomenon, their agreements involve the most advanced sectors of their economies, including telecommunication and energy, as well as the development of a solar photovoltaic industrial park.
As for B and T’s proposal to block ‘dual use’ technology transfers to China, the Indian government has openly rejected that line of unreason by calling on countries to accelerate technology transfers.
‘B and T’ and the entire crowd of ‘armchair war-mongers’ at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) have misread the most basic economic developments of our time. US economic growth is becoming increasingly dependent on large-scale, long-term foreign capital inflows from ‘emerging economies’ – especially China! Developing Asian nations accounted for $440 billion in outward investment, greater than North America or Europe , as the largest source for foreign direct investment. China’s $266 billion dollars accounted for most outgoing FDI from Asia.
China’s importance as a source of investment can only expand, especially through its newly-founded ‘Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank’ (AIIB) and its plans to promote the multi-billion Silk Road linking Beijing through Central Asia to European markets. China’s financial role is going to be crucial in the new BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) bank – developed to counter the IMF.
Nothing that the Obama regime and its advisers from the Council on Foreign Relations have proposed can possibly ‘balance’ the rise of China, because their policies include the boycott of large-scale, long-term Chinese economic initiatives which Washington’s ‘allies’ are eager to join. Virtually all have rushed to sign up with the AIIB leaving a sour-faced Obama Administration totally isolated. The Council on Foreign Relations’ proposal for Obama to form anti-Chinese ‘networks with its allies’ is pointless when such hostile ‘networks’ are clearly not going to undermine their most lucrative economic deals with China.
After running through a laundry list of hostile policies toward China, based on a strategy of escalating military encirclement, ‘B and T’ conclude their essay with a bizarre call for Washington to “energize high level diplomacy with Beijing” and do “everything it can to avoid a confrontation with China”.
This piece of ‘expert’ idiocy could only have been written by a former lecturer from the Harvard Kennedy School.
Policies designed to surround China with US military installations and naval vessels, threaten China’s vital maritime routes. Measures to restrict the sale of ‘dual use’ (civilian) technology and efforts to build hostile regional networks and military partnerships are hardly conducive to ‘energizing high level diplomacy with Beijing. ‘B and T’s proposals and Obama’s policies are designed to confront, provoke and undermine China. That is one very obvious reason why China pursues such favorable economic agreements with its neighbors.
‘B and T’ policy proposals are doomed to fail because the US has not and cannot match China’s robust economic growth. Washington cannot compete with Beijing’s open and flexible large-scale economic agreements with all Asian countries (except the US vassal Japan).
Most Asian powers have rejected the ideological message peddled by the Obama Administration that China is a danger. They see China as a partner, a source of capital and easy financing for vital projects without the onerous ‘conditions’ that the US controlled IMF imposes. They are not interested in big, wasteful spending on costly weapons systems pushed by US war industries and which have no productive value.

An Alternative “Grand Strategy toward China”
If one were to propose a realistic and reasonable ‘US Grand Strategy toward China’ one would have to start by shedding all the false assumptions and bellicose proposals that have been put forth by the CFR and the authors of the Report under review.
First and foremost, the US would have to give up its self-appointed role as global policeman, reallocate its bloated Pentagon budget to finance vital domestic economic development, while rebalancing the US economy away from Wall Street speculation in the FIRE (finance, insurance real estate) sector, to producing goods, providing quality services and financing long-overdue infrastructure development projects.
Secondly, Washington would have to expand and promote long-term, large-scale exports of its advanced technology to compensate for the loss of low value exports.
Thirdly, it would join with China in its new infrastructure bank, securing contracts via aid packages. Washington would have to look at China’s export of capital as an opportunity to improve the US’s deteriorating infrastructure. Washington would have to increase and expand its cyber-technical ties with China via joint ventures. Washington would need to replace its military bases surrounding China with industrial parks, commercial ports and regional ‘Silicon Valleys’ and promote co-operative ventures that allow the US to ride the wave of Chinese dynamism. Since the US cannot (and should not) curtail or compete with China’s growth it should join them and share it.
The US should not attempt to block China’s growth and expansion; it should assist and share in its ascendancy, especially in the face of great global climate and energy challenges. Washington is much more likely to strengthen its Asian – Pacific partnership and succeed in its diplomacy if it replaced its military posturing with robust economic growth.

Note:
James Petras latest books include:
James Petras and Henry Veltmeyer (2014), Extractive Imperialism in the Americas: Capitalism’s New Frontier, published by Brill (Leiden/Boston) (Studies in Critical Social Sciences Series).
James Petras (2014), The Politics of Empire: The US, Israel and the Middle East, published by Clarity Press, Atlanta.

-###-

James Petras is the author of four volume study of US – Israeli relations. The most recent is: The Politics of Empire: The US, Israel and the Middle East claritypress@usa.net. James Petras is a Bartle Professor (Emeritus) of Sociology at Binghamton University, New York. He is the author of 64 books published in 29 languages, and over 560 articles in professional journals, including the American Sociological Review, British Journal of Sociology, Social Research, Journal of Contemporary Asia, and Journal of Peasant Studies. He has published over 2000 articles in nonprofessional journals such as the New York Times, the Guardian, the Nation, Christian Science Monitor, Foreign Policy, New Left Review, Partisan Review, Temps Moderne, Le Monde Diplomatique, and his commentary is widely carried on the internet. His most recent books are: The Arab Revolt and the Imperialist Counterattack (Clarity Press 2012) 2nd edition, The Power of Israel in the United States and Rulers and Ruled in the US Empire: Bankers, Zionists and Militants, (acquired for Japanese, German, Italian, Indonesian, Czech and Arabic editions), Zionism, Militarism and the Decline of US Power, Global Depression and Regional Wars: The United States, Latin America and the Middle East, and War Crimes in Gaza and the Zionist Fifth Column in America. He has a long history of commitment to social justice, working in particular with the Brazilian Landless Workers Movement for 11 years. In 1973-76 he was a member of the Bertrand Russell Tribunal on Repression in Latin America. He writes a monthly column for the Mexican newspaper, Le Jornada, and previously, for the Spanish daily, El Mundo. He received his B.A. from Boston University and Ph.D. from the University of California at Berkeley.

Permalink

Voices

Search

Articles and Writers

Old TPV

June 2015
Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
<< <		> >>
	1	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12	13
14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27
28	29	30

Referred by Liberty

XML Feeds

RSS 2.0: Posts, Comments
Atom: Posts, Comments

What is RSS?

©“We will have a very strong (military) presence, very strong continued posture throughout the region to back our commitments to our allies, to protect and work with our partners and to continue ensuring peace and stability in the region, as well as back our diplomacy vis-à-vis China on the South China Sea”.

David Shear, US Department of Defense’s Assistant Secretary for Asian and Pacific Security Affairs.

Indian President Modi “seals $22 billion of deals on China visit... China had already promised $20 billion of infrastructure investment during (Chinese President) Xi’s visit to India last year”. Financial Times (5/18/165, p. 4)

Introduction

The highly influential Council on Foreign Relations recently published a Special Report entitled, “Revising US Grand Strategy toward China”, (Council on Foreign Relations Press: NY 2015), co-authored by two of its Senior Fellows, Robert Blackwill and Ashley Tellis (‘B and T’), which proposes a re-orientation of US policy toward China. The Report a policy for buttressing ‘US primacy in Asia’ and countering what they describe as “the dangers that China’s geo-economic and military power pose to US national interests in Asia and globally”. The Report concludes by listing seven recommendations that Washington should follow to re-assert regional primacy.

This essay begins by discussing the basic fallacies underpinning the Report, including outdated and dangerous presumptions about US power and presence in Asia today, and the authors’ incoherent, contradictory and unrealistic prescriptions.
Mistaken Assumptions about Past and Present US Policies to China
Blackwill and Tellis (‘B and T’) start out with the preposterous claim that contemporary US policy toward China has been driven by its positive “effort to ‘integrate’ China into the liberal international order”. This is a gross misrepresentation of Washington’s past and current efforts to subvert the Chinese Communist government and to undermine its state- directed transition to capitalism.
Ever since the end of the Second World War, and especially since the Chinese Civil War (1945-49), which brought the Chinese Communist Party to power, the US has poured billions of dollars in military aid to the retreating Nationalist regime and to finance the bloody Korean War (1950-53) – with the open goal of overthrowing the Chinese communist government. When US forces briefly reached the Chinese-Korean border, provoking a Chinese response, Washington threatened to unleash nuclear weapons on the Chinese. For the next two decades, the US maintained a naval and air embargo against the world’s most populous state, an insane policy which was only reversed by President Nixon’s re-establishment of diplomatic and commercial relations in 1973.
When the veteran Chinese leader, Deng Xiaoping embarked on a state-managed transition to capitalism, Washington adopted a two-track policy of encouraging China’s rulers to ‘open their markets’ to US multi-national corporations, while financing and backing pro-US liberal activists seeking to overthrow the Communist government (the so-called Tiananmen Square Uprising) as well as the secessionist Tibetan and Uyghur insurgencies in western China.
Far from trying “to integrate China into the liberal international order”, Washington attempted to replicate the decade-long chaotic and destructive “transition to capitalism” which took place with the dissolution of the USSR under Mikhail Gorbachev. During the disastrous US-backed regime of Russian President Boris Yeltsin – the ‘lost decade’ (1990-1999) - living standards for the average citizen plunged 70% and Russia was transformed from an advanced superpower to a ravaged vassal state. Beijing’s rulers took careful stock of the grotesque pillage of the former USSR and rejected US plans to replicate their ‘Russian success’ and integrate China as a vassal state within the international capitalist system.
Washington’s sanctions and boycott policy, following the defeat of its Tiananmen Square proxies, was of no avail: Washington failed to stop the massive influx of US multinational corporations into China. Its punitive measures had no impact on China’s political stability and unprecedented economic growth.
Washington’s policy supporting China’s entry into the World Trade Organization encouraged China to open up to US investors, but US policy makers did not understand how the Chinese state’s carefully calibrated mix of dependence on foreign capitalist investment and technology with their adoption, assimilation, and autonomous expansion of endogenous Chinese expertise would create a such a massive independent economic superpower.
Washington’s ‘penetration and conquest strategy’, dubbed by B and S as its ‘integration into the international order’, ultimately failed, despite frequent attempts to undermine the Chinese state regulations and controls on foreign capital. The US’ efforts to subordinate (“integrate”) China into its burgeoning Asian empire was unsuccessful.
During this period, China expanded into world markets, harnessing Western capital to its national goals. It borrowed and improved on US technology to develop a high growth model, exceeding the US growth rate by 600%!
For over two decades, China grew exponentially, accumulating hundreds of billions of dollars in foreign reserves, while the US economy ran-up monstrous trade deficits with Beijing. The US had embarked on a series of prolonged wars while converting its economy from productive to finance capitalism and needed to borrow vast sums from China in the form of sales of Treasury notes or face a major domestic financial crisis.
In essence (and not noted by ‘B and T’), China ‘integrated’ into the international economic order as a productive, creditor state, at the same time the US was reduced to financial–debtor status and lost its global economic primacy while pursuing its unpopular wars in the Middle East.
It was not the ‘failure’ of liberal US market policies that propelled China forward to primacy in Asia, as ‘B and T’ argue in their essay, but Washington’s multi-trillion-dollar wars in South Asia, the Middle East and North Africa and its wholesale conversion to Wall Street speculation, which caused the US to lose its primacy in Asia. ‘B and T’s’ claim that US ‘market liberalism’ helped China to emerge as the economic superpower in Asia is a flimsy pretext for ignoring real causes and now promoting an even greater level of US militarism in the region. Unfortunately, their muddle-headed diagnoses and militarist proposals strongly influence the Obama Administrations policy decisions!
Blackwill and Tellis’s unwillingness to recognize China’s peaceful rise to economic supremacy in Asia leads them to rely on a purely ideological construct to bolster their militaristic argument for intensifying “the US naval and air presence in the South and East China Seas and accelerating the US ballistic-missile defense (sic) posture” in the Pacific. ‘B and T’s a priori ideological presumptions lead them to declare that “China is a danger to US Asian interests”, ignoring elementary Chinese vital national interests in having open and secure access to vital waterways leading to their Asian markets and sources of raw materials. At no point does ‘B and T’ identify a single move implemented by China, which has threatened the open seaways. Nor do they identify a single overt or covert threat by China toward the US. While ‘B and T’ fantasize about China’s military threats, they suffer a severe case of amnesia with regard to overt US attacks, invasions, and occupations of China’s Asian neighbors. Over a dozen such military assaults have been launched by Washington in the region, which ‘B and T’ conveniently . . . omit.
‘B and T’s evocation of a “China threat” is a crude ploy to justify further US military encirclement of China, in line with their policy recommendations. The US has recently dispatched B-1 bombers and surveillance planes to Australia and threatens to attack China’s base and port construction on its off-shore shoals and island territories. Equally ominous, US officials arrested a visiting Chinese academic attending a conference claiming he was part of a plot stealing ‘dual purpose’ high tech secrets.
Contradictions and Incoherence of B and T Policy Recommendations
B and T policy recommendations for securing US primacy in Asia are contradictory and incoherent. For example, they recommend that the US “revitalize the economy” and promote “robust growth” as a first priority, but then demand a “substantial increase” in the enormous US military budget. They advocate limits on the sale of civilian technology (so-called “dual” use) and the exclusion of China from US-sponsored Asian trade networks like the ‘Trans-Pacific Partnership’ (TPP).
Most experts openly acknowledge that the huge US ten-trillion dollar military spending over the past two decades has destroyed any possibility for ‘robust growth’ of the US economy. ‘B and T’s recommendations for even more military spending can only make matters worse by diverting public and private capital away from economic growth. This is what undermines the United States strategic future in Asia!
‘B and T’ advise Washington “to expand Asian trade networks” . . . by excluding China . . . the largest investment site and market for the leading ‘500’ US multi-national corporations! In fact, when Obama, in line with ‘B and T’ recommendations, loudly refused to participate in the Chinese-sponsored ‘Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, all of the US major Asian “partners”, except Japan, ignored Washington and joined the AIIB! China is unquestionably the leading economic partner for all Asian countries and none of the bellicose rhetoric that ‘B and T’ spout is going to erode those essential realities.
In fact ‘B and T’s proposal to eliminate ongoing trade with China of so-called ‘dual purpose’ technological exports will further isolate the US from its much-ballyhooed ‘Asian partners’ who are especially eager to ‘add value’ to their exports. In sum, ‘B and T’s recommendations to US policy makers will guarantee an anemic, not a ‘robust’, growth.
B and T proposals are guided by a strictly military logic, contrary to advancing US trade networks.
B and T (and the Obama regime) propose “to reinforce” what they call the Indo-Pacific partnership via a “build-up (of) the power-political capabilities of its friends and allies on China’s periphery”. Whatever ‘B and T’ meant by “power-political capabilities” they certainly did not take into consideration India’s drive for economic development and long-term, large-scale investment and trade agreements. In terms of trade and development deals, the meager results on the heels of Obama’s recent visit to India demonstrate just how shallow the administration’s policy towards the subcontinent really is.
The Indo-Chinese economic and development partnership far surpassed in size and scope any of the vacuous proposals put forth by ‘B and T’ to the Obama Administration. In mid-May 2015, Indian President Modi signed a $22 billion-dollar business deal with China on top of the massive $20-billion dollar Chinese infrastructure investment agreement in 2014. $42 billion-dollars of Chinese investment and trade deals with India have pulled the rug out from under any Obama regime plans to enlist India into its anti-China campaign and military provocations. The reality of Indian-Chinese economic deals shows just how absurd ‘B and T’ policy recommendations are.
President Modi put the ‘nail’ in the coffin of ‘B and T’s, “US Grand Strategy toward China” in his last speech in China after his most successful visit: “I strongly believe that this century belongs to Asia”. Lest it be thought by any other Kissinger protégé, (Blackwill is a Henry Kissinger Senior Fellow), that the deepening Indo-China relation is a mere passing phenomenon, their agreements involve the most advanced sectors of their economies, including telecommunication and energy, as well as the development of a solar photovoltaic industrial park.
As for B and T’s proposal to block ‘dual use’ technology transfers to China, the Indian government has openly rejected that line of unreason by calling on countries to accelerate technology transfers.
‘B and T’ and the entire crowd of ‘armchair war-mongers’ at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) have misread the most basic economic developments of our time. US economic growth is becoming increasingly dependent on large-scale, long-term foreign capital inflows from ‘emerging economies’ – especially China! Developing Asian nations accounted for $440 billion in outward investment, greater than North America or Europe , as the largest source for foreign direct investment. China’s $266 billion dollars accounted for most outgoing FDI from Asia.
China’s importance as a source of investment can only expand, especially through its newly-founded ‘Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank’ (AIIB) and its plans to promote the multi-billion Silk Road linking Beijing through Central Asia to European markets. China’s financial role is going to be crucial in the new BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) bank – developed to counter the IMF.
Nothing that the Obama regime and its advisers from the Council on Foreign Relations have proposed can possibly ‘balance’ the rise of China, because their policies include the boycott of large-scale, long-term Chinese economic initiatives which Washington’s ‘allies’ are eager to join. Virtually all have rushed to sign up with the AIIB leaving a sour-faced Obama Administration totally isolated. The Council on Foreign Relations’ proposal for Obama to form anti-Chinese ‘networks with its allies’ is pointless when such hostile ‘networks’ are clearly not going to undermine their most lucrative economic deals with China.
After running through a laundry list of hostile policies toward China, based on a strategy of escalating military encirclement, ‘B and T’ conclude their essay with a bizarre call for Washington to “energize high level diplomacy with Beijing” and do “everything it can to avoid a confrontation with China”.
This piece of ‘expert’ idiocy could only have been written by a former lecturer from the Harvard Kennedy School.
Policies designed to surround China with US military installations and naval vessels, threaten China’s vital maritime routes. Measures to restrict the sale of ‘dual use’ (civilian) technology and efforts to build hostile regional networks and military partnerships are hardly conducive to ‘energizing high level diplomacy with Beijing. ‘B and T’s proposals and Obama’s policies are designed to confront, provoke and undermine China. That is one very obvious reason why China pursues such favorable economic agreements with its neighbors.
‘B and T’ policy proposals are doomed to fail because the US has not and cannot match China’s robust economic growth. Washington cannot compete with Beijing’s open and flexible large-scale economic agreements with all Asian countries (except the US vassal Japan).
Most Asian powers have rejected the ideological message peddled by the Obama Administration that China is a danger. They see China as a partner, a source of capital and easy financing for vital projects without the onerous ‘conditions’ that the US controlled IMF imposes. They are not interested in big, wasteful spending on costly weapons systems pushed by US war industries and which have no productive value.

An Alternative “Grand Strategy toward China”
If one were to propose a realistic and reasonable ‘US Grand Strategy toward China’ one would have to start by shedding all the false assumptions and bellicose proposals that have been put forth by the CFR and the authors of the Report under review.
First and foremost, the US would have to give up its self-appointed role as global policeman, reallocate its bloated Pentagon budget to finance vital domestic economic development, while rebalancing the US economy away from Wall Street speculation in the FIRE (finance, insurance real estate) sector, to producing goods, providing quality services and financing long-overdue infrastructure development projects.
Secondly, Washington would have to expand and promote long-term, large-scale exports of its advanced technology to compensate for the loss of low value exports.
Thirdly, it would join with China in its new infrastructure bank, securing contracts via aid packages. Washington would have to look at China’s export of capital as an opportunity to improve the US’s deteriorating infrastructure. Washington would have to increase and expand its cyber-technical ties with China via joint ventures. Washington would need to replace its military bases surrounding China with industrial parks, commercial ports and regional ‘Silicon Valleys’ and promote co-operative ventures that allow the US to ride the wave of Chinese dynamism. Since the US cannot (and should not) curtail or compete with China’s growth it should join them and share it.
The US should not attempt to block China’s growth and expansion; it should assist and share in its ascendancy, especially in the face of great global climate and energy challenges. Washington is much more likely to strengthen its Asian – Pacific partnership and succeed in its diplomacy if it replaced its military posturing with robust economic growth.

Note:
James Petras latest books include:
James Petras and Henry Veltmeyer (2014), Extractive Imperialism in the Americas: Capitalism’s New Frontier, published by Brill (Leiden/Boston) (Studies in Critical Social Sciences Series).
James Petras (2014), The Politics of Empire: The US, Israel and the Middle East, published by Clarity Press, Atlanta.