Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog

Panda Huggers vs. Panda Sluggers? That's a good one, hadn't heard that before. Now I can correct people when they call me a pinko-commie bastard for saying that I can't see any scenario under which it makes strategic sense for us to go to war with China (even by proxy).

It's seems so easy to see what we have in common with China geopolitically. Especially living here in Northern California, where there are so many first and second generation immigrants going to school with me. I sometimes have difficulty explaining how I envision our future relationship with China over this century, especially to older baby boomers.

The constant protectionist rhetoric from Lou Dobbs and Chris Matthews doesn't make things any easier. The global economy is in the midst of the largest change since the Industrial Revolution, with similar levels of social fall out, I hate seeing China get the blame. People blame China for economic shifts at the expense of taking real advantage of new opportunities in the global economy.

The Chinese army does not bother me. Maybe when Star Trek becomes reality someone can figure out how to "beam" 500 divisions across the Pacific Ocean. Until then I am not worried. What does concern me is another phoney arms race perpetrated by the folks who make their money selling fear. They got away with it in the 50's and 60's because Russia was a closed and secret society. We were told the Ruskies had an ICBM in every backyard and since we had no way of getting in there to see for ourselves, we fell for it. China is starting to open up. Slowly, yes, but it is opening up because of pressure from within. A little honesty, a little humor and some decent satellite recon and we can avoid another era of hiding under our school desks.

Twist Mr O'Connor's valid comment togeather with some of the things Tom has said previously and the linked article on how to fix the DoD ... and we have a list of things we save money by not buying ... and we do some things we no doubt need to do

BUT for the flow to work ... for the gap to be shrunk there has to be a Leviathan ... somebody has to be able to do the quick low infrastructure damage takedowns ... and that has to be US ... so any ideas on how to figure out how big the Leviathan force needs to be??

My only concern with China is that it is not YET a democratic entity. But as I learn from Tom, it heading that way.

My concern is that some megalomaniac gets behind the reins of their government and takes China down the path of a fascist state. As, in dictator with a super strong economy able to aggressive, just like Hitler. (I know Hitler-smitler)

Until China becomes more democratic, there is a risk of it becoming a fascist state. Once it guarantees individual rights, and has a truly representative government, there is a risk. Just like 1920's-30's Europe.

Let's help them become democratic.

Steve: off the top of my head:

+ the JSF was sold, among other ways, as ultimately cheaper than the F-16. are you sitting down? costs are rising. F-16s are the best fighters in the world (except the also-American F-22).
+ the F/A-18F is a really solid plane that has kept getting upgraded. WRT to F-35 see above.
+ the F-22 is a plane in search of an opponent. no one could fly with the 16s or the 18s, not to mention...
+ we don't have near enough common airlift, from long to short, strategic to tactical, jet, rotor, or helo.
+ the Army's desperate play for their slice of the budgetary pie: FCS with Lead System Integrator Boeing. costs constantly on the rise, few mature technologies and, don't forget, the budgeted costs are not for outfitting the whole Army, just part.
+ so, eg, Joint Light Tactical Vehicle: hybrid engine, advanced drive train, etc, etc. do we really need a next-generation Hummer for shrinking the Gap? no. upgrade the Hummers. use some of the thousands of MRAPs we bought last year (that might literally go into cold storage in Norway with no plans to use).
+ oh, the Navy: gigaexpensive new destroyer and subs. again: why do we have to have state of the art when 1. we probably won't fight other great powers and 2. they have yesterday's tech.
+ Galrahn keeps saying we need subs. fine. there are some nice, cheap diesel ones coming out of Europe that are really quiet. wonder what fraction of a Virginia-class they cost?

short answer: buy more stuff we might actually use (not to mention need right now! (see airlift above) and actually need and quit gearing significantly for future possible great power war. hedge against it, yes, but don't gear for it.

Ok, So Tom says not to be scared of China and I believe him. It develops, more and more, but this takes time. How much time do we give them before we say there are things that you cannot do, rule sets that must be acknowledged. When do we say that issues like Tibet need to be resolved? How much flexibility and forgiveness does opening your economy to the free market buy you?

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/torch-guards-are-paramilitaries/2008/04/09/1207420485603.html

Why do people still expect China to conform to their fantasy vision of a society solely based on their values?
Why is a 'democratic' Japan that still is blatantly rascist with signs on the high street banning other Asians (especially Koreans and Chinese) from entering acceptable?
Why is a repugnant caste system, regular ethnic pograms and invasion and occupation of Kashmir OK for a 'democratic' India?

What motivates these self righteous westerners?
the Americans who all but exterminated the native Indian population and left the remains in quasi prison camps/reservations, and continue to invade nations at will plundering their wealth
the Australians who have perpetrated even worse evils on their indigineous population, and pulled a nice fast-one with Timor (to get their hands on their oil),
and the British, the French, the Germans ........well...........the history book is not kind to them or their methods.

.......jealousy, fear, selfishness, ignorance.
We see Americans getting all uppity because Mexicans enjoy a joke about an ad that shows the old border including all Western & southern states but can't understand the Chinese?

You can forget about China giving up Tibet. Countries don't become great powers to give up big chunks of their country. Ain't going to happen. More religious freedom there over time, but not independence or a "free Tibet."

You can say, they've only had it for X years, but the Chinese don't look at it like that. They see it lying within their historical boundaries.

Of course, you could say to the U.S., give back everything you took from Mexico, because you've only had it X years, and we'd say something similar.

But clearly, China's got to acknowledge the rising religious quotient in the country, because that's only going to get worse.

I like (and agree) with the Tom's observation that Economics leads Politics. I would add that Technology leads Economics, which leads Politics -- it is technology that has enabled Globalisation, which has led to economic ties with China, which hopefully will soon change our politics, as the economics of fear (hopefully) are trumped by hope.

Wiredman:
There is a risk of China moving in a Fascist direction, if, (1) US politicians succumb to protectionist ballyhoo, resulting in economic chaos in China, and (2) we treat China like an international pariah and ratchet up military pressure trying to "contain" it.
Read, Keynes, "The Economic Consequences of the Peace", for a great recipe on how to create a Fascist state.

Another question to ask, Steve: How much of the Leviathan force actually needs to be in our hands? NATO was designed to fight a great-power war-- a Leviathan war, essentially. The other NATO members have expertise in fighting such wars, but limited abilities. By giving our allies a sizeable portion of our equipment, we can speed the transition to a combination Leviathan/Sysadmin force, renew the alliance by giving it a new mission and reassure people who get antsy at the sight of one country with as much power as we have.

From Polanyi's The Great Transformation: In order to comprehend German Fascism, we must revert to Ricardian England."

It is said that the principle thesis of Polanyi's book was that:

"The utopian attempt to restore the 19th Century liberal order after the First World War created the economic and social upheavals, and political tensions, which were the essental cause of the world economic crisis -- and of the demise of democracy in most of the states of continental Europe."

Are these (world economic crisis; demise of democracy) the consequences that we court as we try to restore/expand the liberal order after the Cold War?