How China's Military Views the United States

There is a huge difference between Germany in the 1920's and 30's and China of the last 25 years. Germany was already a developed country that lost everything in WWI and was forced into poverty. They were highly educated, and very technology-advanced. Forcing them into poverty while their weak neighbors enjoyed their wealth was a mistake, not unlike putting a starving wolf among sheep.

China's poverty was self-inflicted as Chairman Mao killed tens of millions of his own people, including landowners, teachers, scholars and business owners. He also forced the farmers to take up horribly ineffective agricultural practices, which almost led a half billion people into starvation. Even if China drifted into a destabilized condition (which they have done periodically over the last 40 centuries), it would not have affected people outside of China. They did not have the technology to be a threat to other countries. WE gave them that technology, and the economy that allowed them to build all those weapons and weapons systems.

China becoming politically liberalized is mostly a pipe dream, just like NAFTA was. As the Chinese get wealthier, they spend more money on spying on their own people, weapons to threaten other countries, and bribes and loans to help themselves to the natural resources of the world's poorest nations. The first casualty is the truth: China tells other nations what to think and what to say.

The slower you push a third world nation through modernization, the more clearly you can see where that modernization is headed and whether they will be more like you in temperament and policies or less. We pushed China along way, way too fast, giving them too much technology and too much money. We should have limited U.S. investment in China until such time as they took up democracy. They had no expectations of anything from us--we did not owe them anything. There was little risk of destabilization that would affect other nations, as the Chinese were very much used to poverty (especially since they brought it upon themselves).

We naively assumed that China would want to be like us as they became wealthier. Clinton is the latest in a long line of gullible and ill-informed U.S. presidents to throw huge amounts of money at China to "reform" them, while actually making them wealthier and more dangerous. We created our own enemy, just like we did with the Soviets, except without the excuse that the country was helping us win a major war.

 

I think I can conceive of the size of the issue. I have spent many months working in China at multiple locations around the country. I have read a moderate amount about Chinese history.

Most of China's culture was slaughtered by Chairman Mao. It was not "suppressed" by Mao. It was fed into a shredder. Tens of millions of people were killed--teachers, professors, scientists, landowners, businessmen, and others. (He believed he had to do that, so that people would accept that only he had the right answers for how to run China. They had so many centuries of doing things the old way, it would be difficult to persuade the educated and powerful to accept a new political system. So he killed them.) China developed most of its education and entrepreneurial culture after Mao died. The Chinese were certainly inspired by the 4,000-year history of Chinese culture and accomplishment, but after Mao finished his purges, they were mostly starting from zero. They couldn't even feed themselves after Mao was finished teaching them how to farm--half a billion people almost died of starvation. Would a culture that was merely suppressed have allowed that? Of course not. True, China is only one century removed from its previous culture and system of government. But the people who could have brought that forward into the present day were killed before they could do so.

 

All of that orthodoxy is a direct repudiation for the wisdom of the preceding generation, which was captured (somewhat crudely) in the common high school class of the 70's and 80's, Americanism versus Communism. Based on our experiences with the Soviets, we had decided that communist countries could not be trusted. I think Carter's administration started the ball rolling in the opposite direction when they recognized China (but not Taiwan) as a country. Reagan did little to advance China's development, and I don't think Bush, Sr. did either. It was Clinton that allowed (if not encouraged) greedy U.S. (retirement) mutual funds to invest in Chinese businesses, as the profits from the internet economy were starting to slow in the U.S. And so the great transfer of technology (and cash) began. GWB wasn't really smart enough to recognize the problem, so he didn't make any significant policy changes. Obama thought everything was going great with China policy, until they started showing signs of aggressive behavior (and even then, he incorrectly believed that the proper use of diplomacy would dissuade China from its goals of regional domination). Trump was the first president to attempt to financially punish China for their behavior. He was not very successful, but at least he had figured out that China was dangerous and should be opposed, and not appeased.

I will see if I can read "The Snakehead". What I would recommend for you, if you have not read it already, is "Mr. China". It is an eye-opening book of American gullibility from the perspective of these investment groups that poured money into China in the 1990's.

 

More on the Chinese fishing issue. Apparently the Chinese like to "go dark" when they are illegally fishing.

Chinese fishing armada accused of plundering waters around Argentina

They should capture the vessels, and if found to be illegally fishing, take the fish from them, and sink the boat as an artificial fishing reef. Send the fishermen home on a slow boat to China.

 

It's worth the time and effort to read it in paperback. It will blow your mind.

 

China bans lobsters from Australia in its latest economic warfare to control what other countries say and do regarding China.

Lobster or legitimacy? A key U.S. ally embraces the West — and pays the price with China

 

No doubt, the U.S. does not have a pristine history to look back upon. Guess what? No country does. The behavior of the past does not represent who we are today. We also make mistakes in our dealings with other countries--that's part of being led by humans who make mistakes. I'm sure within Iraq and Afghanistan, there are people that not only understand the motivations and justifications of the U.S. military in their country, but also appreciate what the U.S. was attempting to accomplish.

I get it--every side thinks they are right. That is why, in a dispute, you should look to third parties who can give an unbiased view of the situation. There are a lot more countries that agree with the U.S. side of the dispute with China than agree with the Chinese side. In fact, I can't think of any independent country that agrees with China on foreign policy issues. Many keep silent under threat of economic retaliation, but silence under duress should not be mistaken for moral justification.

And yes, the things that China has been doing rise to the level of "acts of criminality". There are laws governing the behavior of nations with regard to the open oceans, and China violates those laws routinely. Building a reef into an island and militarizing that island is against international maritime law. Transferring fish caught from one ship to another on the open ocean is against the law as well. There are other things that China does that are bad for the planet as well: overfishing, support for poaching for traditional Chinese medicine (and the extermination of wildlife that goes with that), pollution that goes all the way across the Pacific Ocean and affects the west coast of the U.S., destructive mining practices, etc. What China is doing to the Ughyurs is abhorrent. Their business practices leave a lot to be desired: technology and I.P. theft (also criminal), monopolization of key natural resources globally, bullying of companies that so much as mention the name "Taiwan", etc. All of these things are covered up as much as possible with an endless campaign of propaganda to convince the gullible people of the world that China is "one of the good guys" in the world today.

I don't think that warfare with China will be necessary, unless China insists upon it. If Biden can get Europe and other major economies on board to stop doing business with China until China cleans up its act in all these areas, there will be little money for China to spend on its military (or anything else), which is the source of much of their willingness to abuse other countries and flout so many laws. In China's mind, might makes right, and that is a dangerous way to think. It's one thing to expect your own people to respond to that philosophy, but something else entirely when you expect people of all nations to agree to intimidation and extortion.

The future of human life on planet earth depends on our ability to correct China's despicable practices, and not solely from a national security standpoint. Large animals in Africa and elsewhere are looking at extinction due to China's hunger for TCM. Large fish have been 90% depleted from the oceans, and China has by far the largest ocean-going fishing fleet. Some of those fish may go extinct. A significant part of global warming can be laid at the feet of China, who in recent years was adding more unregistered and unregulated coal-fired power plants every year than the entire electrical capacity of England (and China uses a very dirty coal). They dam up rivers that flow to other countries so that those countries get whatever water China does not need. China is a threat to virtually every single neighboring country in some way or another.

 

I am not looking at "us = good, them = bad". I'm looking at individual actions. The Chinese are committing actual crimes, in addition to committing crimes against humanity. Can we not state that committing crimes and destroying the planet is wrong? Why have laws if obeying them is optional?

As far as U.S. mistakes in international affairs, that's what they are--mistakes. They are not generally done to provide us any great gain other than our own security. We had a chance to take Iraq's oil, but did not do so. We had a chance to take Afghanistan's rare earth metals, but did not do so. Would China have done the same? We also had many other nations on board with both of those actions, risking the lives of their own troops (in small numbers, but still). Other nations did not take the side of Iraq or Afghanistan.