tdaxp

A number of unfortunate stories out of Beijing these days, two being China promotes Taiwan-focused military officers and China rejects use of sanctions to resolve Myanmar crisis. While neither are new developments (the Communist Party has protected the Burmese junta and opposed Taiwanese democracy for some time), the decision to look to the past says little about the strategic wisdom of the Hu Jintao Presidency.

President Hu has not lived up to the high expectations set for him. In spite of personal squabbles with former President Jiang Zemin that just don't end, the current generation of Chinese rulers are no more imaginative than the last. Things aren't getting better with respect to China's international behavior, but they aren't getting worse, either.

A sensible approach would be to assume that China's cautious glidepath toward development will remain unchanged. So we should keep growing trade links with China, and of course encourage helpful behavior from them. But we shouldn't have naive dreams, either. China is developing, but she is not a democracy. She has people, but does not have the security experience of India. She has wealth, but does not have an ocean of free capital like Japan. She has culture, but nothing like the vibrant democracy of Taiwan or the captive city of Hong Kong.

American policy in western and central asia should focus on the economic integration of China and the security integration of Japan, Taiwan, and India.

In both cases, the prime obstacle is the Democratic Party. But that is a post for another time...

Two recent events, within twenty-four hours of each other, give hope to us all. First, India and the United States signed a nuclear accord which will allow that Republic to develop technology to deter deter an unseemly neighbor (Pakistan) and a neighbor that should be deterred from war as much as possible (China). Meanwhile, North Korea continues to show obstinance in her nuclear talks, which encourage Japan's nuclearization. This encourages Tokyo to develop technology to deter an unseemly neighbor (North Korea) and a neighbor that should be deterd from war as much as possible (China).

Sometimes, proliferation is grand.

"Chickens, Eggs, & Connectivity," by Stephen DeAngelis, Enterprise Resilience Management Blog, 14 July 2006, http://enterpriseresilienceblog.typepad.com/enterprise_resilience_man/2006/07/chickens_eggs_c.html.

"Report: Indian gov blocks Blogspot, Typepad, Geocities blogs," by Xeni Jardin, Boing Boing, 17 July 2006, http://www.boingboing.net/2006/07/17/report_indian_gov_bl.html (from Digg).

In a prescient article last Frday, Enterra cofounder Stephen F. DeAngelis criticized the proposed law Global Online Freedom Act of 2006 that is currently in the House of Representatives. The bill would begin firewalling the Old Core, particularly the United States, away from the New Core, especially China. It would make disconnection in one area (technological freedom) as an excuse to roll-back connectivity in other market arenas. It's a bad idea all around -- it will isolate America from her allies in this Global War against Terrorism, it isolates American businesses from their partners abroad, and by imposing regulations on technology companies it will lesson our nation's advantages over competitors.

Steve's post is worth reading, especially this bit where he emphasizes the need for economic growth. Economic development enables freedom, or as he says

Not only is such a bill likely to make the U.S. even less well liked abroad, it is unlikely to achieve the goals it desires. While some may see it as a chicken-and-egg discussion (which comes first freedom or capitalism?), historically economics have had a greater impact on the politics than vice versa. Whatever Tienanmen Square represents symbollically, Shanghai is the real face of change in China and it is driven by economics. For all intents and purposes, Shanghai is developed, capitalistic, world-class city despite the controls the central government has tried to impose on Internet content.

Don't believe it? Then compare China to India -- both are developing states, but China is a party dictatorship and India is a multiparty democracy. A perfect test case is blogs, and thus it is no surprise that India is attacking free speech on blogs:

India's Department of Telecommunications (DoT) passed an order to ISPs Friday to block several websites. The list is confidential. Indian ISPs have been slowly coming into compliance. SpectraNet, MTNL, Reliance, and as of Monday afternoon, Airtel. State-backed BSNL and VSNL have not started yet but likely will soon. The known list of blocked domains is *.blogspot.com, *.typepad.com and geocities.com/*.

Anyone who believes that a bill that restricts trade with countries that censor information will only hit dictatorships is misguided. Underdeveloped countries generally begin turning on themselves, from China to India to France. Slapping de facto sanctions on those states only hurts their economies -- and their citizens' freedoms -- more.

Support freedom. Support economics. Oppose the Global Online Freedom Act of 2006.

"The Pentagon's New Map," by Thomas Barnett, Esquire, March 2003, http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/published/pentagonsnewmap.htm.

"LeT, SIMI hand in Mumbai blasts," The Times of India, 11 July 2006, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1733318.cms (from Democratic Underground).

"IT IS HIS FAULT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!," by democracynowfla, Democratic Underground, 11 July 2006, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2381900&mesg_id=2382604.

Discussion on this blog of India maintaining a near-abroad now seem quaint, as yet again the country is victim of a terror war inside her borders.

The terror attack on Mumbai trains was carried out by Lashkar-e-Toiba and local Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) activists and was designed to trigger communal conflagration in the country’s financial capital, intelligence sources said.

While still waiting for clues to emerge, top intelligence sources in New Delhi seem pretty sure the blasts on the trains were plotted by Lashkar modules which are increasingly collaborating with activists of SIMI, which boasts of strong pockets of influence across Maharashtra.

This confirms my earlier work which defined an AfroIslamic Gap, as well as Tom Barnett's model of a New Core. As is predicted by Tom Barnett's original Esquire article,

This country has successfully exported security to globalization’s Old Core (Western Europe, Northeast Asia) for half a century and to its emerging New Core (Developing Asia) for a solid quarter century following our mishandling of Vietnam. But our efforts in the Middle Ease have been inconsistent—in Africa, almost nonexistent. Until we begin the systematic, long-term export of security to the Gap, it will increasingly export its pain to the Core in the form of terrorism and other instabilities.

The Democratic Underground is, as always, helpful

BUSH AND COMPANY HAVE CREATED THE ATMOSPHERE THAT ALOWS THESE ATTACKS TO TAKE PLACE.
THERE WAR MAKING MACHINE IS MAKING OUR WORLD A MORE VIOLENT PLACE.

While Chirol at Coming Anarchy is more worthwhile.

A "near abroad"is an area outside of a country which that country claims as her own. One example of a near abroad is the western hemisphere, which the United States (through the Monroe Doctrine and the Roosevelt Corollary) has protected for ages. Other "near abroads" are simply parodies of the concept. Russia (through the old Soviet Empire) and China (with her nemesis, the democratic state of Taiwan) pretend they are able to control areas which they are too weak too.

Recently, some ultranationalist statements have hinted that many citizens of India also wish their country to have a near abroad.

"China vs India by charts," New Economist, 14 October 2005,http://neweconomist.blogs.com/new_economist/2005/10/china_vs_india_.html (from SimonWorld, also at PSD Blog).

Deutsche Bank recently compared Chinese and Indian economic growth over the past few years. It clearly shows how just a few years of slightly higher economic growth can change global power,a lot

Growth is very important. Let's hope American politicians have learned the lesson.

Update: The Asianist picks up the story from AsiaPundit, and agrees with the conventional wisdom

What this tells me is that China's reform policies have paid off handsomely, but that China's business culture has some strong hurdles. Conversely, India has fared less well due to slower reforms, but has a greater potential in the sense that there is more ingrained Western-style business culture.

Indian corruption, Japanese billionaire-murderers, Korean soccer shenanigans, and angry Chinese...

Bill at Dawn's Early Light blogs on Indo-Japanese Connectivity and corruption in New Delhi's arm purchases. Hopefully nothing like that is going on in Bollywood.

North of India, are good times returning to Nepal?

Is Japanese Billionaire Nobutada a serial killer?

The ever-friendly Norks fire a missile at the Sea of Japan, and are fined by FIFA for the Pyongyang Soccer Riot. Curzon at Coming Anarchy notes that South Kotea is stepping up to held its old "friend."

Perhaps the Indo-Japanese deal isn't for nothing.. Japan's drilling very close to Chinese oil waters under the name Imperial Oil

Quizas notes that Taiwanese anti-KMT protestors were more violent than Chinese anti-Japanese protestors. And what to regular Chinese think of Koizumi?

Riding Sun takes a photo

"Indian foreign policy could do with some irrationalism, The Acorn, 8 February 2005, http://opinion.paifamily.com/?p=1230.

"Indian foreign policy could do with some irrationalism, by Sunil, The Acorn, 9 February 2005, http://opinion.paifamily.com/?p=1230.

No theme here, just a post and a reply that are both fascinating.

Was the American invasion of Afghanistan "irrational"? And was that a good thing?

Deliberate irrationalism involves giving an impression that in certain extreme conditions, a country will respond way out of proportion to the actual provocation. The most common example of this is the manner in which China retaliates when other countries even marginally scale up their engagement with Taiwan. The US invasion of Afghanistan in response to 9/11 is another case in point. Operation Parakram, when India mobilised troops to its border with Pakistan in response to the attack on its parliament is, arguably, an example of its only recent use by India. Therefore, threatening an irrational response, and being prepared to carry it out is a powerful tool of foreign policy.

Will British Indian Empire South Asian Muslims lead a worlwide Islamic consciousness?

Versions of Shah Waliallah’s political ideology are present in most parts of the Indian Subcontinent. The Pakistani version is the most virulent and most divisive. Most people do not realize (and I include all the so-called Hindu Right Wing ideologues I have spoken to in that number) that the “muslim minority” in India (150 Million) taken together with the populations of Pakistan (130 Million) and Bangladesh (200 Million) adds up about 480 Million people, roughly half the total population of Muslims in the world. Also bear in mind that *most* of the educated and well-off Muslims in the world are Indian citizens.

"Winds of Change Challenge (Bringing It All Together)," by Bill Rice, Dawn's Early Light, 13 April 2005, http://dawnsearlylight.blogs.com/del/2005/04/winds_of_change.html.

An epic post on China, Taiwan, India, Japan, Australia, the United States, and peace in Greater East Asia and South Asia.

From a comment in the ensuing discussion

Thank you for your thoughtful comments. My point is not that the US will work against China per se, but work with like minded countries (not pawns... I think I clearly attempted to list each nation's self interested reason for cooperating with the US position) to contain China from acting out aggressively towards Taiwan. Through this manner and engagement with China diplomatically we can wait out the clock for a more free China.

Exactly right.

Read it.

Update: Per request, my comment on the article

Great post. Your comment that through "this manner and engagement with China diplomatically we can wait out the clock for a more free China" is exactly right. I agree with your conclusions, but I'd like to comment on some of your supporting claims and implications

Just as Japan was able to strike quickly at Pearl Harbor, China may be able to strike quickly against Taiwan, but like Japan circa 1941, China does not have the access to oil and the ability to hold off a militarily superior United States.

The problem goes beyond oil -- like Imperial Japan, Communist China does not have access to the outside world in a conventional war with the United States. The US Navy and US Air Force would be able to quickly shut down Chinese lines of communications to almost everywhere. Assuming both sides has the resolve to accept the military loses and the responsibility not to use conventional weapons, the situation would quickly deadlock in a stalemate militarily advantageous to the United States (China having a huge army..... in China).

On the mainland the People's Liberation Army is militarily undefeatible, even with a total blockade.

Such an extended conventional war is unlikely with Beijing, but (barely) possible.

While the United States did help promote democracy during the Cold War, it did not do so with the passion and energy our nation needs to now pursue it. The Cold War was about pragmatic compromises, supporting unsavory dictators as well, especially in the Middle East, to keep countries in the US sphere rather than the Communist sphere.

In a post Cold War world, where different ideologies dominate the world debate, the old paradigm of working with unsavory nations cannot continue to ensure US security.

Between the Cold War to Globalization era, America switched from a negative to a positive foreign policy. As I blogged earlier

The Soviets were attempting to connect as much of the globe as they could to their command-and-control economy. For them this was a future worth creating. Reagan didn't have a future worth creating. He saw a future worth destroying. We sought to disconnect every state the Soviets connected, and we succeeded.

Bush, with Clinton's help, switched America from being anti-Communist to pro-Open-Society. There were just as many ideologies during the Cold War, but our relative weakness, our main enemy's strength, meant we focused on his destruction.

If the US fails to defend a democratic Taiwan from China then it destroys any credibility won in the War on Terror with other nations. If we fail Taiwan what is our response to Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Ukraine, Japan, Australia, our European allies, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and many other nations that depend on American security?

While China may be a problem for the United States, it is not a threat to globalization itself. China's future worth creating is a lot like ours, only with differente emphases. bin Laden's hopeful future is a nightmare. China is a developing authoritarian state that is slowly opening up. Saudi Arabia is terrible awfulness, in country-form

It would be possible to America to abandon Taiwan and maintain momentum in the Global War on Terrorism. We could make a trade with Beijing for abandoning Taiwan, and structre the trade to keep up the forward momentum.

It would be unwise, but it possible. Our response to Saudi Arabia and others would be "China is not good but getting better, you are terrible and getting worse."

Additionally, allowing China to take Taiwan by force would automatically make the 21st Century a Chinese Century, as the ability for the US to promote and defend global security would crumble. Any century that has a non-free government as the apex of the international order will not be a century of peace, economic development and the expansion of liberty.

A historical analogy is useful. Would the 20th century have been better or worse if the Britain did not intervene to save Belgium? We would have had a authoritarian-Germany-dominated trade-oriented Europe. Berlin would have torn Russia apart, crushed the terrorist states in the Balkans, isolated Paris, and probably back democracy in Belgium significantly. Instead, London saved Brussels and we got Lennin, Stalin, and Hitler for our troubles.

China is "good enough" to be the major player in Greater East Asia. It's not the future I want, but it's not necessarily bad.

Elsewhere in your post you mention that China's strategy may be to make a quick negotiated settlement favorable to Beijing. If that happens it is important that we will have thought about the consequences clearly.

Because of Japan's fears of a rising Chinese dragon, they have extended their military relationship with the US to include defending Taiwan. If war was to break out in the Taiwanese Strait, the economic engine of Asia and possibly the world would grind to a halt. It is in Japan's long term political, national security and economic interests to work with the United States in providing a proper deterrent to China. It is encouraging that Japan has boldly taken this step

Good point. Assuming a conventional naval start, international sea lanes would quickly be taken by America with China's navy destroyed. America would be dictating when and where trade continues and resumes. While mercantile cowardess leads nations to favor peace at almost any cost, American force rebalances the equation in favor of our interests.

While a popular Indian worry about any future US arms deal would be the possibility of another arms embargo, as happened with India and Pakistan over the 1996 nuclear testing. This scenario is unlikely to repeat itself, because the US strategically needs New Dehli and New Dehli is not likely to start a war with Pakistan.

Kind-of related, especially where Taiwan is concerned. North Vietnam invaded the South in 1972, and lost. America's left-dominated Congress then imposed a de-facto arms embargo on Saigon, and two yeras later Hanoi easily won. Beacuse of the influence of a small but powerful left, America has won a reputation for perfidity. India (and Taiwan) are both taking this into account.

The United States along with democratic countries in Eastern Asia have an opportunity to build a constructive alliance to deter China from seeking its goals militarily, but they must act now and wait for an emerging dragon to reform democratically.

Exactly right.

"Russia Tells Pakistan: India 'Deserving UNSC Candidate'," Daily Times, 31 March 2005, http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_31-3-2005_pg7_45 (from The Acorn).

I blogged before on Russia's responsible attitudes toward China. Part of the reason is Russia is excellently placed for Asia's future -- Moscow's Cold-War-Era times to New Delhi should come in useful. The latest good news? Russia support's India's quest for a United Nations permanent seat:

Russia told Pakistan on Wednesday that India was a “deserving candidate” for an expanded UN Security Council seat, PTI reported. Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf’s special envoy Riaz Khokhar was told this when he called on Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Saltanov, PTI said. Khokhar met Saltanov to convey President Musharraf’s personal message to Russian President Vladimir Putin. The conversation focussed mainly on international and regional issues. “In the context of a upcoming UN reforms the Russian side affirmed the well-known consistent and principled position of Russia on expanding the UN Security Council membership. Moscow sees India as a deserving candidate,” said Russian sources, reiterating Putin’s statement in December last that Russia would back a permanent UNSC berth for India. However, Saltanov called for a consensus on UNSC reforms.

The Acorn adds his thoughts

Moreover, by leaking news of what was supposed to be a ’secret meeting’ the Russians did not lose the opportunity to score points in New Delhi.