Connect with us

Americas

US Foreign Policy Challenges in East Asia

Luis Durani

Published

on

Despite the media’s constant barrage of news pertaining to the Middle East, another region that is strategically imperative to the US is East Asia. The Far East is comprised of economic powerhouses such as China and Japan as well as the vibrant and growing economies of South Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam, and others. East Asia will be the global economic center of gravity in the coming decades.

While the economic forecast looks promising, the diplomatic and military situation appears tenuous at best. One of the bigger concerns for the next president of the US will be how they approach the growing rift in East Asia between China and her neighbors.

China

Currently, there doesn’t appear to be any major challenger to US hegemony in the world but many commentators refer to China as the most viable contender. The Chinese economy has been growing consistently each year for the past thirty years. On par with the economic growth, the Chinese defense budget has been increasing as well.

At the moment, China does not appear to wield any sort of ideological bent that it desires to propagate to other nations instead it is focusing on economic development. As such, it does not appear that China will become an ideological rival to the US on the global stage like the Soviet Union. Nevertheless, as China grows it will want to reassert itself in its backyard without any foreign meddling. This aspiration poses a long-term strategic threat to US security imperatives in the region. Aside from not being able to fulfill mutual defense treaties with allies such as Japan and Taiwan, the US can be left out of a region with the largest economic growth projected in the near future.

Aside from the military tensions in the region, the next president needs to impress upon China the role and responsibility of a rising power with respect to its international duties. One of the major issues that the US and other nations have encountered recently is the currency devaluation practice China employs in order to help stimulate exports at the expense of international trade. Another contentious problem that will need to be addressed is the protection of intellectual property. The Chinese have become notorious for stealing and imitating an array of intellectual property and rebranding it as her own.

Additionally, the Chinese will need to be confronted on matters of cyber infiltration. With the ever growing digitalization of the developed world, the vulnerability of the US to a cyber-attack continues to grow. The US has already sustained cyber-attacks allegedly by Chinese hackers that were working for the People’s Liberation Army. These types of attacks resulted in losses of American military and corporate intelligence.  

In the last couple of decades, the fashionable mantra in politics is to point out that the US is in decline while China is on the rise. Even though China may match American economic might in the coming decades, its military and technological gap is still wide. With the US on the path to becoming energy independent and a potential energy exporter, the supposed decline of America might be not so near. However in order to perpetuate the status quo, the next president has to work on maintaining a relationship with China that helps bring both nations closer together to resolve global issues while ensuring both nations are working on equitable terms.

South China Sea

Robert Kaplan, one of the foremost experts on the region, stated: “The South China Sea will be the 21 st Century’s defining battleground.” This large swathe of a sea is considered to be a great economic source of wealth as well as vital to geopolitical strategy.

With eight nations vying for control of the maritime features, tensions are starting to spill over into potential conflict. One of the most recent flashpoints has been the artificial island constructions by China, which were employed as airstrips. This allows China to create forward operating “islands” in the middle of nowhere and increase its Economic Exclusive Zone (EEZ).

The significance of the South China Sea is its potential for wealth as well as the strategic advantage it will bequest upon whoever controls it. Unlike other seas, the South China Sea has three factors that make it one of the most important seas to observe and promises a major conflict in the next few decades.

The South China Sea has a wealth of resources such as fishery stocks that comprise the livelihood and diet of so many in the region. It is believed to be one of the most lucrative fishing areas in the world. Securing a stable food sources will be a critical aspect for most countries in the region as their population continues to grow.

The discovery of large sources of oil and gas reserves under the seabed has only further enticed the surrounding littoral nations to intensify their claims for control of the sea. Chinese officials have estimated the oil reserves at one trillion US dollars. The potential for gas is even larger. If any nations manage to wrest control of the region, energy independence as well as a large revenue stream is guaranteed.

The control of the South China Sea is vital in projecting power to the Eurasian rimlands and eventually to the vast interiors. The sea also serves as a natural link between the Indian and Pacific Oceans only furthering its appeal. This natural passageway between the two oceans creates what is known as the Malacca Dilemma for Chinese strategists. The Malacca Dilemma refers to the dependence of China on the Strait of Malacca both economically and geopolitically. The Strait of Malacca is analogous in importance to the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf. One-third of all global trade transits through the strait as well as more than the overwhelming majority of raw materials and energy needs for the Chinese economy. Due to the increased traffic over the years, it has become a critical chokepoint.

China appears to be both the most economic and militarily preponderant force in the region. As China continues to grow, it will assert itself much more forcefully in the South China Sea in order to expel the US military from the region. If successful, the Chinese can disturb the freedom of navigation in the major sea lanes. This will threaten US economic interests. The next president will need to watch the sea carefully and continue to use the US navy as a buffer to Chinese ambitions in order to ensure freedom of navigation.

North Korea

North Korea or the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) poses one of the most precarious predicaments in politics due to its nuclear arsenal, fickle dictator, unstable economy, and repressed population. The volatile situation makes all the regional states apprehensive and afraid of the ruinous potential that exists in being dragged into a conflict. The Chinese are reticent to defend the North Koreans yet more fearful of a united Korea with an American base on its border. Across the demilitarized zone, the US is weary of defending the South Koreans yet it cannot be perceived that it won’t fulfill its commitment to an ally. The best way out is a compromise between the two Koreas but there isn’t any desire on either side of the border to do so.

China is the main lever that can control North Korea’s actions to an extent. The next president will need to work and goad China to rein in the instability caused by Pyongyang. With an insecure dictator that possesses a nuclear arsenal, North Korea will be a country that keeps the next president awake at night.

Taiwan

Taiwan or the Republic of China continues to be a thorn in the Sino-American relationship. When Taipei announced its government, the US was not diplomatically apt to recognize the country. It was not until the Korean War that the US started a policy of containment in the Pacific Rim region with the protection of Taiwan as a priority.

As China grows economically and militarily, the Taiwan question will come more into play. Of all the perils associated with the South China Sea to security and peace, the disorder affecting the Taiwan Straits is by far the most threatening. The prospect of war is nowhere more promising than in this dispute. The US mutual defense agreement with Taiwan has helped secure it from a Chinese invasion for now. As the Chinese military continues to strengthen its capabilities, especially its anti-access/area denial capabilities, it will become more brazen in its actions towards Taiwan. The next US president will need to watch the precarious situation develop while maintaining its commitment to Taiwan. The US will not only need to play the role of a security guarantor to Taiwan but also a tension mollifier between the two rivals in order to maintain the peace.

Vietnam

Once an enemy of the US, Vietnam today represents one of the most pro-American countries in the region. With the rise of China, Vietnam’s status in the Pacific tug of war between the US and China has enhanced. Naturally, Vietnam is inclined towards the US because of its long and quarrelsome history with Beijing as well as China’s regional hegemonic aspiration. Although the US and Vietnam have not cozied up to the level of other regional states, the common interest of containing China’s regional goals is motivation enough for both countries to further develop their burgeoning relationship.  

China and Vietnam are currently engaged in disputes in and around the South China Sea mainly the Paracel Islands. While Vietnam claims the islands, China fully controls them. The islands have been the site of many clashes. When China placed an oil rig within Vietnam’s EEZ and justified it by arguing that the area was within the Chinese EEZ due to its “sovereignty” over the Paracel Islands, a face-off ensued. After a few clashes, the Chinese withdrew citing completion of their test but warned they reserved the right to return. While the US called the Chinese move rabble-rousing it did not impose any punitive measures. At the same time, the US continues to not sell any lethal weapons to Vietnam. With the US uninvolved and China’s growing naval strength, Vietnam is becoming somewhat intimidated and may eventually bend to the Chinese whim.

As the US begins to pivot more to Asia, the next US president needs to consider taking the relationship with Vietnam to the next level. With a deep water port and growing industrial manufacturing capabilities, Vietnam can play a great military and economic role in the US East Asia strategy.

Burma (Myanmar)

Burma has the potential to play the pivotal trump card in the US-China tango for East Asia. Due to the lack of media coverage, Burma’s importance to the US strategic imperative for the region is not stressed enough.

China has a long and comfortable relationship with the country since its independence in the middle of the 20th century. China is a vital military supplier and has many strategic military cooperation initiatives. In exchange, China is granted access to Burma’s naval ports, which grants it an entrance to the Indian Ocean bypassing the Malacca Strait. China hopes to use the nation as a corridor to the Indian Ocean and reduce its reliance on the South China Sea. The country also serves as a pivot point for China to observe Indian military movements in the region. However, this friendly relationship between the two nations has hit a few bumps in the last couple of years. Burma has beckoned a change in its foreign policy by engaging other regional players and reducing its dependence on China.

In recent years, the relations between the US and Burma has warmed up with the exchange of ambassadors as well as the easing of sanctions against the country. Despite human rights abuses by the Burmese government against the Rohingya minority, economic exchanges with the US are still going forward. The US is supporting the democratic transition in Burma. As Burma’s neighbor to the north becomes stronger and richer, a counterweight is needed to help ensure Burma’s interest and regional stability is maintained. The next president of the US will have many countries to look at in this part of the world but Burma will play a fundamental role in determining if Chinese ambitions are checked for the region. A balance is needed between encouraging the transition to democracy and condemning their actions towards the minority population. It will be a fine line for the next president to tread on.

Luis Durani is currently employed in the oil and gas industry. He previously worked in the nuclear energy industry. He has a M.A. in international affairs with a focus on Chinese foreign policy and the South China Sea, MBA, M.S. in nuclear engineering, B.S. in mechanical engineering and B.A. in political science. He is also author of "Afghanistan: It’s No Nebraska – How to do Deal with a Tribal State" and "China and the South China Sea: The Emergence of the Huaqing Doctrine." Follow him for other articles on Instagram: @Luis_Durani

Continue Reading
Comments

Americas

American (And Global) Oligarchy Rapidly Moving Towards Monarchy

Rahul D. Manchanda, Esq.

Published

on

Many people do not realize that the proverbial “noose” of civil rights, civil liberties and property rights are rapidly coming to an end, in large part because of the unholy alliance by and between government and the global oligarchs (international banks and major corporations).

For example, people don’t realize that current U.S. federal law permits all banks and credit unions (such as Chase Bank owned by CEO Jamie Dimon) to close any account, at any time, and for any reason, even when their own employees commit fraud, make mistakes, commit unethical acts or otherwise screw the banking customer over for personal or political reasons, and that customer then files a legitimate complaint.

The financial institution is not required to divulge the reason(s) for account closure to the customer.

Now, when a business account is closed by a bank, the bank can (and will) retain the funds in the account for 90 to 180 days in order for checks, debits, chargebacks, etc. to post to the business account before the bank will mail the business customer the remaining proceeds from the account.

However the account holder is of course not allowed access to their own hard-earned funds at all.

What this means is that these banks and credit unions have been given a universal right to steal any and all monies placed within their coffers by anyone at all, which can then be “confiscated” for any reason.

It is even so absurd that these banks and credit unions, even after they have seized or stolen your money/property, do not even have to give you a reason, and can then ban you for life from ever getting your money/property back.

This same reasoning applies to nearly all of the major businesses and corporations, wherein due process has gone the way of the extinct “dodo bird.”

This is what it means, when an administration (in this case Republican) talks about “bank deregulation.”

In many ways, Democrats had the right idea over Republicans when they created and enacted such banking regulatory agencies such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”), recently gutted and decapitated by the Trump Administration and his coterie of bought and paid for Republican conservatives.

The problem is that the same global Oligarchs and International Banking Cartels that controlled the Democrats, and enacted even more stifling Communist type regulation to further control, cull, and choke off the American (and global) population (think Obama’s “Operation Chokepoint”), simply use Republican “deregulation” as another mechanism to screw over, steal from, and rob the working and middle class, by allowing these international banking cartels, credit unions, and corporations to completely do whatever they want, to anyone, for any reason, in the absence of any regulation.

Herein lies the rub, and there has to be a middle ground, but only if the American people (and their global population counterparts) push back and vociferously tell their elected leaders to take legal and equitable action against these global thieves and criminals.

Continue Reading

Americas

War, Anniversaries and Lessons Never Learned

Dr. Arshad M. Khan

Published

on

On December 7, 1941, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and the U.S. entered the Second World War.  A war of horrors, it normalized the intensive, barbaric bombing of civilian populations.  If the Spanish Civil War gave us Guernica and Picasso’s wrenching painting, WW2 offered up worse:  London, Berlin, Dresden to name a few, the latter eloquently described in Kurt Vonnegut’s “Slaughter House Five.”  Against Japan, the firebombing of Tokyo, and above all the revulsion of Hiroshima and Nagasaki radiated a foretaste of ending life on the planet.

Reparations demanded from Germany had led to the rise of Adolf Hitler and a thirst for revenge.  Thus Hitler demanded France’s 1940 surrender in the same railway carriage where the humiliating armistice was signed in 1918.

If the war to end all wars — its centenary remembrance a month ago — killed 20 million plus, the successor tripled the score.  Disrupted agriculture, severed supply chains, fleeing civilians, starvation and misery; civilian deaths constituting  an inordinate majority in our supposedly civilized world.

One of the young men baling out of a burning bomber was George H. W. Bush.  He was rescued but his crew who also baled out were never found, a thought that is said to have haunted him for the rest of his life.  He went on to serve eight years as vice-president under Ronald Reagan and then four more as president.  Last week he passed away and was honored with a state funeral service in Washington National Cathedral.

His legacy includes the first Iraq war and the liberation of Kuwait.  While he avoided the hornet’s nest of ethnic and religious divisions in Iraq itself, the war’s repercussions led to the Clinton sanctions and the deaths of half a million children.  The UN representative overseeing the limited oil-for-food program, Irishman Denis Halliday, resigned in disgust.  Not to forget the infamous answer by Clinton’s Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.  Asked by Leslie Stahl if it was worth the lives of 500,000 children … more than that died in Hiroshima, she answered:  “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price — we think the price is worth it.”  (CBS 60 Minutes program, May 12, 1996).

Note the “we” in her answer.  Who else does that include but our “I-feel-your-pain” Bill Clinton.  Hypocrisy, arm-twisted donations to the Clinton Foundation while wife Hillary was Secretary of State in the Obama administration; her shunning of the official and secure State Department email server in favor of a personal server installed at her request and the subsequent selective release of emails.  Well who cares about verifiable history these days anyway as the following demonstrates.

Yes, there was another anniversary this week for a different kind of war.  This time in India.  After securing freedom from the British, a secular tradition was proudly espoused by the patrician Nehru and the epitome of nonviolence, Gandhi.  It is now in the process of being trampled in a war against minorities.  The communal war includes the massacre of Muslims in Gujarat for which Narendra Modi was barred from the U.S., a ban lifted only when he became prime minister.  He, his party and his allies have been also responsible for the destruction of the Babri Mosque.  An organized Hindu mob tore it down on December 6, 1992; hence the shameful anniversary.  Built on the orders of the first Mughal emperor Babur, its purpose was to cement relations with Hindu rajas by also sanctifying for Muslims a place holy to Hindus and held traditionally to be the birthplace of Rama — famous from Hindu epics for fighting evil with the assistance of a monkey god’s army … although one is advised to avoid close contact with temple monkeys when visiting.

As the first Mughal, Babur’s hold on India was tenuous and he actively sought alliances with Hindu rulers of small states against the pathans whose sultan he had just defeated.  That affinity continued during the entirety of Mughal rule and one manifestation was frequent intermarriage with Rajputs.  Several emperors had Hindu mothers including Shah Jahan the builder of the Taj Mahal.  In the end, Babur’s fears were warranted because Sher Shah Suri did marshal those pathan forces and throw out his son Humayun, the second Mughal ruler.  It was only Sher Shah’s untimely death during the capture of Kalinjar (a Hindu fort then held by Raja Kirat Singh) that made Humayun’s return possible.

The destruction of the mosque was a historical wrong if ever there was one, but then Mr. Modi has never been bothered by history.  He is also not bothered that his party’s fairy tale revision of school history books is a scandal.  For similar reasons, Indian history on Wikipedia is too frequently tarnished, requiring verification from other sources to be properly informed.

The wrongs of communities, just as the wrongs of war, can lead to repercussions unanticipated and cataclysmic.  Yugoslavia is an example in living memory.  Clearly, any ruler of a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural country contemplating a path of communal dominance must take note before he is hoisted with his own petard.

Author’s Note:  This article first appeared on Counterpunch.org  

Continue Reading

Americas

Racism does not need racists

Jorge Majfud

Published

on

In my classes, I always try to make clear the difference between opinions and facts. It is a fundamental rule, a very simple intellectual exercise that we owe ourselves to undertake in the post-Enlightenment era. I started becoming obsessed with such obvious matters when I found out, in 2005, that some students were arguing that something “is true because I believe it” – and they weren’t joking. Since then, I’ve suspected that such intellectual conditioning, such a conflation of physics with metaphysics (cleared up by Averroes almost a thousand years ago) – which year by year becomes increasingly dominant (faith as the supreme criterion, regardless of all evidence to the contrary) – has its origins in the majestic churches of the southern United States.

But critical thinking involves so much more than just distinguishing facts from opinions. Trying to define what a fact is would suffice. The very idea of objectivity itself paradoxically originates from a single perspective, from one lens. And anyone knows that with the lens of one photographic or video camera, only one part of reality is captured, which quite often is subjective or used to distort reality in the supposed interest of objectivity.

For some reason, students tend to be more interested in opinions than facts. Maybe because of the superstitious idea that an informed opinion is derived from the synthesis of thousands of facts. This is a dangerous idea, but we can’t run away from our responsibility to give our opinion when it’s required. All that we can and should do is take note that an informed opinion continues to be an opinion which must be tested or challenged.

An opinion

On a certain day, students discussed the caravan of 5,000 Central Americans (at least one thousand of whom were children) fleeing violence and heading for the Mexican border with the US. President Donald Trump had ordered the border closed and called those looking for refuge “invaders”. On 29 October 2018, he tweeted: “This is an invasion of our Country and our Military is waiting for you!”. The military deployment to the border alone cost the US about $200 million.

Since one of my students insisted on knowing my opinion, I started off with the most controversial side of the issue. I observed that this country, the US, was founded upon the fear of invasion, and only a select few have always known how to exploit this weakness, with tragic consequences. Maybe this paranoia came about with the English invasion of 1812, but if history tells us anything, it’s that the US  has practically never suffered an invasion of its territory – if we exclude the 9/11 attacks in 2001; the one on Pearl Harbor, which at the time was a military base in foreign territory; and, prior to that, at the very beginning of the twentieth century, the brief incursion of a Mexican named Pancho Villa mounted upon a horse. But the US has indeed specialized in invading other countries from the time of its founding – it took over the Indian territories, then half of Mexico, from Texas, to reinstall slavery, to California; it intervened directly in Latin American affairs, to repress popular protests and support bloody dictatorships – all in the name of defence and security. And always with tragic consequences.

Therefore, the idea that a few thousand poor people on foot are going to invade the most powerful country in the world is simply a joke in poor taste. And it’s likewise in bad taste for some Mexicans on the other side to adopt this same xenophobic talk that’s been directed at them – inflicting on others the same abuse they’ve suffered.

A critical view

In the course of the conversation, I mentioned in passing that in addition to the foundational paranoia, there was a racial component to the argument.

“You don’t need to be a racist to defend the borders,” said one student.

True, I noted. You don’t need to be a racist to defend borders or laws. At first glance, the statement is irrefutable. However, if we take history and the wider current context into consideration, an openly racist pattern jumps out at us right away.

At the end of the nineteenth century, the French novelist Anatole France wrote: “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.” You don’t need to be an elitist to support an economically stratified culture. You don’t need to be sexist to spread the most rampant type of sexism. Thoughtlessly engaging in certain cultural practices and voicing your support for some law or another is quite often all it takes.

I drew a geometric figure on the board and asked students what they saw there. Everyone said they saw a cube or a box. The most creative variations didn’t depart from the idea of tri-dimensionality, when in reality what I drew was nothing more than three rhombuses forming a hexagon. Some tribes in Australia don’t see that same image in 3D but rather in 2D. We see what we think and that’s what we call objectivity.

Double standards

When President Abraham Lincoln emerged victorious from the American Civil War (1861-1865), he put an end to a hundred-year dictatorship that, up to this day, everyone calls “democracy.” By the eighteenth century, black slaves had come to make up more than fifty percent of the population in states like South Carolina – but they weren’t even citizens of the US, nor did they enjoy even minimal human rights.

Many years before Lincoln, both racists and anti-racists proposed a solution to the “negro problem” by sending them “back” to Haiti or Africa, where many of them ended up founding the nation of Liberia (one of my students, Adja, is from a family which comes from that African country). The English did the same thing to “rid” England of its blacks. But under Lincoln blacks became citizens, and one way to reduce them down to a minority was not only by making it difficult for them to vote (such as by imposing a poll tax) but also by opening the nation’s borders to immigration.

The Statue of Liberty, a gift from the French people to the American people to commemorate the centenary of the 1776 Declaration of Independence, still cries with silent lips: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free…” In this way, the US opened its arms to waves of impoverished immigrants. Of course, the overwhelming majority were poor whites. Many were opposed to the Italians and the Irish because they were red-headed Catholics. But in any case, they were seen as being better than blacks. Blacks weren’t able to immigrate from Africa, not just because they were much farther away than Europeans were, but also because they were much poorer, and there were hardly any shipping routes to connect them to New York. The Chinese had more opportunities to reach the west coast, and perhaps for that reason a law was passed in 1882 that prohibited them from coming in just for being Chinese.

I understand that this was a subtle and powerful way to reshape demographics, which is to say the political, social and racial make-up of the US. The current nervousness about a change to that make-up is nothing more than the continuation of that same old logic. Were that not the case, what could be wrong with being part of a minority group or being different from others?

You don’t need to be a racist…

Clearly, if you’re a good person and you’re in favour of properly enforcing laws, it doesn’t make you a racist. You don’t need to be racist when the law and the culture already are. In the US, nobody protests Canadian or European immigrants. The same is true in Europe and even in the Southern Cone of South America [the southernmost region of Latin America, populated mainly by descendants of Europeans]. But everyone is worried about the blacks and the hybrid, mixed-race people from the south. Because they’re not white and “good”, but poor and “bad”. Currently, almost half a million European immigrants are living illegally in the United States. Nobody talks about them, just like nobody talks about how one million United States citizens are living in Mexico, many illegally.

With communism discarded as an excuse (none of those chronically failing states where migrants come from are communist), let’s once again consider the racial and cultural excuses common to the century prior to the Cold War. Every dark-skinned worker is seen as a criminal, not an opportunity for mutual development. The immigration laws are themselves filled with panic at the sight of poor workers.

It’s true that you don’t need to be racist to support laws and more secure borders. You also don’t need to be racist to spread and shore up an old racist and class-based paradigm, while we fill our mouths with platitudes about compassion and the fight for freedom and human dignity.

UNESCO

Continue Reading

Latest

Trending

Copyright © 2018 Modern Diplomacy