An absolute 'MUST READ' by A E-P

It is not for the likes of me, a rank amateur outsider with minimal knowledge, to be too specific in my views of international affairs – but I do, so there!  I suppose my only defence is that I usually ‘fess up to my guesswork and at least you lot do not have to buy me pints of beer in the Saloon Bar as I honk out my opinions.  But all that said, I have muttered, many a time and oft’, that American statecraft needs to be exceedingly subtle and intelligent as it faces up to its next big ‘21^st century championship contest’, this time with China.  So far, the auguries are not good!

In The Telegraph Ambrose Evans-Pritchard (A E-P) points an accusatory finger at ‘ugly American’ diplomacy used in a futile attempt to thwart Chinese plans to set up an international bank (AIIB) in competition to the IMF and the World Bank, both of which are, in effect, American satraps:

Under the Bretton Woods carve-up over the last seventy years, World Bank chiefs are always American by droit de seigneur, and all IMF chiefs are European. The US clings steadfastly to its IMF veto. Capitol Hill has yet to ratify a reform of the IMF quota system that currently gives the US four times as much power as China, or approve a badly-needed expansion of IMF funding.

It is precisely the American policy of refusing to budge an inch against growing Chinese pressure that is likely to cause increasing tensions in the future.  The fact, as plain as a boil on your nose, is that China is, like Topsy, growing and growing. It is madness to oppose each and every example of its very natural tendency to flex its muscles.  It is double madness to force your allies into choosing between you and China as it does so.  Thus, as A E-P points out, hissy-fits in Washington as they tried – and failed! - to stop allies from joining the AIIB merely result in the USA looking both foolish and feeble.  It reminds him of earlier American mistakes with China:

One is left breathless at the historical folly of such a view in any case. As Henry Kissinger told Caixin magazine this week, the greater danger is that the US fails to accommodate the rise of China in an enlightened fashion, repeating errors made by the status quo powers faced with a prickly Germany before the First World War.

There are echoes of the Korean War in this Atlantic spat, though thankfully the stakes are less violent today. Britain tried to restrain General Douglas MacArthur and Washington's hawks as they sent US forces charging through North Korea to the Yalu River and the Manchurian border in 1950, warning that it would force China to respond.

MacArthur's contemptuous riposte was to liken British reflexes to the betrayal of Czechoslovakia at Munich, of "desiring to appease the Chinese Communists by giving them a strip of Northern Korea." The British experts were right. China threw four armies across the Yalu. America had arrogantly stumbled into a shooting war with the Chinese revolution, a cataclysmic mistake.

It is fair to say that the late Gen. MacArthur actually makes Obama look slightly intelligent – but only just!  By all means, Mr. President, pick a fight with the likes of ISIS if you really, really must but do not think twice before having a go at China – THINK SEVERAL TIMES OVER – and then think again!  And whatever you do, handle your allies with care, you may need them one day.

I should add in order to be clear that I do not believe in Chinese invincibility and super intelligence.  They are human and as prone to error as all of us.  In a way, of course, that makes them potentially twice as dangerous.  I suspect that they, too, require a greater number of cool, analytical minds in their policy-making circles lest arrogance overtakes patient craft.

 

Comments

[Whitewall]

American statecraft will need an American president and State Department. Right now we lack both. Any successful policy around the Pacific will require maximum respect for and cooperation with our traditional allies. This will be vital. This too is lacking.

I'm hoping, in vain maybe, that the AIIB diplomatic slap down might wake a few clueless fools in Washington. Our media gave that slap down virtually no coverage.

[David Duff]

Ah well, 'Whiters', to paraphrase, you'll never go broke underestimating the intelligence of any democratic government.

[Lawrence Duff]

I'm with Machiavelli, not Guicciardini.

As Machiavelli pointed out, a patchwork of Liberal states is easy to take, but difficult to hold. Whereas a monolithic autocracy is difficult to take, but easy to hold.

US policy to try and hold together the Liberal states in a stance against China is difficult, and the chance of failure high, but that doesn't make it wrong. One must just struggle to keep the herd together.

One must remember that China is a vile place politically, and embracing its institutions will only spread its vileness, corruption, gangsterism, etc., into our own.

As AEP says, China is collapsing under its own contradictions, why should we prolong it?

The ordinary citizen ultimately benefits from a steadfast, solidarity in the Liberal states of the West against an illiberal enemy. The cold war for example. We got on just fine without Russia and China, and guess what, without our institutions buddying up and helping them out, they collapsed under the weight of their own contradictions - to the great benefit of the ordinary citizens of West and East.

AEP thinks only of the political classes when he constructs this argument that the West should intermingle with tyranny. It suits Western political and business leaders just fine, of course! But the ordinary people pay the price.

This comes from AEP's background in economics, where ordinary people are mere "human resources".

AEP should stick to economics and leave the politics to someone else.

SoD

[David Duff]

Lawrence, check my latest post, or better still check the link to Zero Hedge. Also, one of these days you might like to write a post on your thoughts on the progress of 'robotics'.

[Lawrence Duff]

The key thing to take on board about robotics is that it's ok to be a chav. Eventually, everyone will be a chav. When robotic production's output exceeds need and enters the want level of output, even the handful of very bright, over-worked, stress-monkeys who run the robotic complex will say "fuck this for a game of soldiers", and join the chav-masse.

The big obstruction to this natural progression to the "leisure age" is social-democracy. In particular, the vast bureaucracy of the public sector and the private sector monopoly corporates. This sector harbours an ocean of "in denial chavs", who instead of doing a do nothing job on £40k per annum, should kick back and enjoy a life of leisure on £14k per annum. That would eradicate the deficit and let the handful of propeller-heads expand their production and output. Soon £14k per annum would become £40k per annum, and they could still be sitting on their arses doing f'all.

(For the benefit of the ex-colonials, "chav" is someone who doesn't work, is funded by benefits, and spends the entire day watching daytime TV, or reading Shakespeare, controversial books, and posting to their blog about it, or somewhere in between).

SoD

[JK]

"For the benefit of the ex-colonials, "chav" is someone who doesn't work, is funded by benefits, and spends the entire day watching daytime TV, or reading Shakespeare, controversial books, and posting to their blog about it, or somewhere in between."

I'd found myself wondering about that "chav" label Lawrence. I take it you have an example to hand?

Arkies are a curious lot.

[David Duff]

Oi, YOU! 'Oo you callin' a Chav? And when are they goin' to put my pension up?

[Whitewall]

Lawrence, thanks for the definition of "chav". Curiosity had me hunting for my Funk and Wagnalls. Over here, that term would largely describe the base of the Democrat party.

[JK]

And over here, "that term would largely describe the base of the Democrat party."

As well as former staffers for, the not stood for election in recent cycles, the *no longer "serving,"* indeed, all former officeholders retaining 98.6° of both the Democratic and Republican parties.