Interesting Chinese Analysis

Thomas PM Barnett's article this week, Resist the temptation to demonize China, offers some interesting Chinese analysis regarding how to deal with China during the upcoming Olympics, and while the article as a whole is intended to encourage Americans to remain focused on real threats instead "of being nostalgic for "threats" we find more familiar" we find this part very interesting.

With Beijing, better to shine spotlights on religious freedom and environmental degradation, two issues where we'd find plenty of ordinary Chinese in our corner. China's becoming more religious, common when a country experiences a lot of positive economic change, and its grass-roots environmental movement is growing by leaps and bounds. By tapping into those increasingly popular sentiments, we give Beijing more palatable choices than dismembering the country.

In other words, this is where to be effective in a soft power approach using the tools of public dissemination of information and active protests. While the environmental degradation is easier accomplished, I tend to think that if the west focused on religious freedom they would get better social results. I do wonder though, is a protest in support of religion freedom in China even possible today? Who is going to do that protest, American conservatives? I'd love to see that, because I don't see it happening. Barnett peeks into the future and sees an interesting scenario.

Understand this about our military's urge to tag China as its favored "near-peer competitor": the Pentagon's three "big war" scenarios are all shrinking fast and will be gone within a decade's time. The Taiwan scenario is fading fast, as warmer political ties will soon bolster the island's already profound economic integration with Mainland China, thanks to renewed Kuomintang party rule in Taipei.

Meanwhile, Iran's achievement of nuclear status is rapidly approaching a fait accompli (ruling out a regime-changing invasion), and the North Korean scenario is looking as wobbly as Kim Jong Il's rule now that Beijing is significantly trimming back its economic and diplomatic support.

When these remaining "big war" scenarios go away, the Pentagon's going to need a new justification for its lavish spending on big-ticket weapon systems, aircraft and ships. The emerging favorite? The coming "resource wars" between America and China.

I'd like to think there is not an impending US vs China war in our future, but I don't see that as the same as the end of "big war" scenarios. The time period in history I think best represents today is in the 19th century, and in this regard I see China as playing the role of the United States in the 19th century. What happened to the US in the 19th cenutry? We had a bloody civil war, and the rest of the world had plenty of conflict too. In many ways, I agree with Barnett that if the military focus is on the big ticket weapon systems, aircraft, and ships our nation will be poorly resourced for managing the challenges of this century, but that doesn't mean the US should give up those big ticket items. We just need to be selective, and have a strategy that is relevant to our time.

I think two things are counter to Dr. Barnett's analysis though, and both are required if the US and China can avoid the trap of a military face off. First, China's military buildup is not transparent, this is the single largest issue countering his analysis on China. Until China adds transparency to their military buildup, China not the US is who pushes for a cold war. I don't know if Dr. Barnett fully understands that aspect of the potential cold war between China and the US, but the lack of transparency in China's military buildup explains Japans increased military spending, South Korea's increased military spending, Australia's increased military spending, Taiwan's increased military spending, and India's increased military spending. It effects everyone.

The second problem is that domestic politics in a number of nations are pushing for energy policies that create a very large resource shortage well beyond raw materials that are drilled for or mined, and that resource is food. Our desire to force the market towards bio fuels in this country is throwing fuel on the flames of a resource war faster than any foreign policy we have. I don't see any leader who is going to turn back the clock on this misguided government policy towards bio fuel right now either, which means our domestic energy policy will likely force the resource war on others as we reduce the supply of food world wide in pursuit of very inefficient ethanol. Unfortunately that issue is driven by politics, which all but guarantees nobody will believe bio fuels is a problem until it is too late.

Which candidate is ready to say give up bio fuels and invest in aluminum energy sources? Probably not the candidate that will be supported by the progressives or the conservatives, who favor bio fuels and drilling for more oil respectively as the way ahead. One to starve the world, the other to pay the thugs of the world. Aluminum and nuclear power is smarter, but the politics of energy in the US insures millions will have to die before we admit it.