China! China! China!
Barnett
So many stories on China right now. Some balanced, but so many more full of sound and fury signifying damn near nothing.
Bill Geertz at the Wash Times does his usual breathless (and slightly comical) reporting on the "bold" new "hedge" strategy of the Pentagon vis-a-vis China.
Oooh! Aaaah!
Yes, the "hedge" strategy certainly is a bold one. Basically, it just resurrects the old post-Sov strategy of hedging against the Russians (called "reconstitution" in the early 90s and often described as "hedging" in by the mid-1990s). China is now being "hedged" against, because we are told by Geertz that Cold Worriers Rice and Rummy see no utility in mil-mil ties with the Chinese military, which they believe is too "communist."
Such is the state of strategic vision with this administration, which seems almost on auto-pilot at this point, with the main story of the day being who will resign under what conditions.
I watched a Chinese-born China expert from the Wilson Center on CSPAN after the coverage of Hu's White House talk tonight (yes, from the jacuzzi as I soaked me bones after the untol mega-lifts of the day--only one mishap!) and this Hongying Wang was simply spectacular. She handled all the stupid viewer questions with great aplomb ( the basics? China is totalitarian, gets huge amounts of foreign aid and has a military almost bigger than ours) and gave plenty of reasonable descriptions of the great challenges China faces domestically.
Watching her, I couldn't help but think that China scholars in the U.S. are an endangered lot. First come the ex-pats, and then come the mainlanders themselves. In 15 years, there will be no Western experts on China of note. There will only be the Chinese and their own experts.
Of all the stories I read, Neil King's in the WSJ was pretty good ("As China Boosts Defense Budget, U.S. Military Hedges Its Bets," 20 April, p. A1). My favorite part? We're spending roughly the same ($70B)as China spends each year on its entire military on JUST the R&D for a long-range stealthy bomber whose only legit justification will be China.
Yes, yes, the Chinese have almost caught us alright. King's story quotes both Fox Fallon (PACOM) and Gary Roughead (PACFLT and my host last month) and it's interesting that the military who are closest to China geographically talk the most reasonably, while it's the Pentagon hawks who see the most danger.
I had a realization listening to Wang speak. She answered a question on why multinationals can't help but invest in China. She said, "They say, how can we possibly not cash in on that market!"
Same is true for the big-ticket platforms that won't get built unless China is trumped up as the justification. How can these defense contractors, their Pentagon minders, and their Congressional allies (whose definition of grand strategy is, 'Will you build it in my district?") POSSIBLY pass up on cashing in on the "rising" market that is China?
I mean, no China, no $70B R&D on that long-range bomber.
Meanwhile, the true intell is found in an A3 story in the WSJ: "China Will Allow Its Investors to Head Abroad: Policy Shift Could Ease U.S. Pressure Over Value Of the Yuan, for Now."
This is why I read the WSJ: get the standard fare and the real intell.
thomaspmbarnett.com |
