End Washington’s Buildup for War with China, Pursue Peace and Economic Cooperation
written by connor
freeman
thursday june 29, 2023
As Washington is mired in brinkmanship with Russia in
Ukraine, the last thing the US should do is decouple with China. For years, the
Pentagon has been eyeing a future war with Beijing, yet another unnecessary war
which – in our lifetimes - could lead to this planet’s nuclear incineration.
America’s new Cold War
with China is a bi-partisan imperial project led by the Democrats. In 2011,
former President Barack Obama began it in earnest, dubbing it the “pivot to
Asia.” The “pivot” entails the
largest military buildup since the Second World War, shifting hundreds of bases
as well as two-thirds of all US Air and Naval forces to the Asia-Pacific
region. Washington is encircling China
for a future
war with Beijing.
In 2020, while Americans were distracted by the Covid-19 crisis, Donald Trump’s
war cabinet seized the opportunity to drastically expand the US military
footprint in Beijing’s near abroad by sending more warships and spy
planes, conducting aerial surveillance flights, to the region and
especially the South China Sea. These provocations have been vastly escalated
by the Biden administration.
Americans must soon put the shoe on the other foot and ask how Washington would
react if instead China was surrounding the US with weapons of war and military
bases.
Ten months after Biden entered the oval office, US reconnaissance aircraft had
flown over
2,000 sorties in the South China Sea, the East China Sea, and the
Yellow Sea, including near China’s coast. That same year, Biden nearly
doubled the deployments of aircraft carrier strike groups in the South
China Sea.
In
2022, US spy planes flew 1,000 sorties in the South China Sea including, in
some instances, flying just over a dozen miles from the baseline of China’s
mainland territorial waters. US aircraft carrier strike groups and amphibious
alert groups made eight deployments to the region. Last year, Biden sent
nuclear-powered attack submarines to the South China Sea 12 times.
Concurrently, the US is attempting to wrangle
its allies in the confrontation with
China, bringing the north Atlantic
alliance to the Indo-Pacific targeting
Beijing, and building various alliances such as AUKUS and the
Quad with Australia, Japan, and India, eyeing an east Asian version of
NATO.
The Trump administration formally rejected almost
all of China’s claims to the waters in the South China Sea. Washington has been
challenging China, using the Navy’s Seventh Fleet, inserting itself into disputes between
regional actors there whom all have overlapping
claims on the waters including over various, sometimes unmanned,
rocks, reefs, islands, islets, and archipelagos. Under Biden, the policy has
been reaffirmed.
Even if it means war with China, Biden’s administration has pledged that the US will defend Japan‘s
claims to the uninhabited Senkaku Islands. The Senkaku Islands are claimed by
Beijing, Tokyo, and Taipei. Similarly, Washington has promised the
US military will come to the Philippines’ defense
in the event of a violent conflict with China, including in the South China
Sea, potentially over the disputed Whitson Reef, which is claimed not only by
Beijing and Manila but by Hanoi as well.
The Navy routinely conducts so-called Freedom
Of Navigation Operations (FONOPS), in the waters surrounding China, sailing
warships through the waters, particularly in the South China Sea, usually provocatively
close to Chinese controlled or claimed islands.
Additionally, Biden’s administration has overturned almost 50 years of
US-Taiwan policy, which has largely kept the cross-strait peace. Per the former
approach, the US would never
commit to defending or not defending the island, which the US views as
part of One-China,
against a potential attack on the breakaway province. Critically, “strategic
ambiguity” has aimed to deter Beijing from attempting to retake the island by
force and, at the same time, to discourage Taiwan’s radical factions seeking to
declare independence.
Biden himself has frequently
made what were thought to be “gaffes” contradicting long-standing
US policy on Taiwan. The president has repeatedly insisted that America’s sons
and daughters would be sent to the island to fight this war with China that his
administration is actively provoking. Although, this year both the commander of
US Indo-Pacific Command, Admiral John Aquilino, and the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Avril
Haines have confirmed “strategic
ambiguity” is dead and gone.
China has made clear that Taiwan is a “red
line.” While the American side promises they only want to “deter”
war with these actions,
Beijing has repeatedly said that they seek a “peaceful reunification” with
Taiwan but they have not ruled out using force. Washington’s actions make
war more likely.
The US is now committing billions
of dollars in military
aid to Taiwan, expanding US
National Guard training programs with the Taiwanese military, continually
sending more Congressional delegations to the island, deploying higher numbers of US
troops to the
island, training hundreds
of Taiwanese soldiers for war on US soil, converting Taiwan
into a “giant
weapons depot,” and sailing American
warships through the sensitive Taiwan strait almost every month.
Senior Fellow at Defense Priorities and Retired Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Davis has
explained that a war with China over the island of Taiwan could see
American cities obliterated with nuclear weapons over an issue which does not
affect our national security unless we unnecessarily involve ourselves. Davis
details the dire risks of this extreme bipartisan bellicosity,
It is
crucial to understand that for China, the Taiwan issue is not merely a core
interest, but an emotionally
charged one. They are far more willing to pay extraordinary costs,
sacrifice many men, and could risk it all to eventually compel unification with
Taiwan. The issue does not directly affect our national security unless we get
involved.
If we eventually choose war with China over Taiwan, we will at best suffer
egregious losses in ships, aircraft, and troops; in a worst-case, the war could
deteriorate into a nuclear exchange in which American cities are turned into
nuclear wastelands, killing millions.
America should never take such risks unless our security and freedom are
directly threatened. Fighting China for any reason short of that would be a
foolish gamble of the highest order.
China is
more often becoming the favorite
excuse for our mammoth Pentagon budget, which is already closing
in on $900 billion, depleting our resources and capital. As it is, we
actually spend nearly
$1.5 trillion on the national security state every year.
This policy which threatens all of us dearly, is implemented by entrenched
bureaucrats ideologically committed to the neoconservative
agenda of global
domination and the military-industrial complex giants currently ensnared in
a huge “price gouging” scandal are the beneficiaries.
These firms are ripping off American taxpayers so blatantly– reaping obscene
profits ranging from 40% to as high as 4,000% - that last month some prominent
senators sent a letter demanding an
investigation to our Raytheon board member turned Pentagon chief Lloyd Austin.
During a recent 60 Minutes report,
Shay Assad, who worked as a Pentagon contract negotiator for 40 years, cited
numerous examples to the outlet explaining that
these arms industry behemoths overcharge the DoD for everything from “radar and
missiles … helicopters … planes … submarines… down to the nuts and bolts.”
Such “astronomical price increases” have sharply spiked amid Washington’s exponentially
rising demand for weapons systems to both bolster Taiwan and Kiev, the
report said.
Decoupling is the absolute worst policy to enact even in peacetime. But as we
are nearing brinkmanship with China, it should be most unthinkable. As Otto T.
Mallery, the late 19th century liberal, wrote “if
soldiers are not to cross international boundaries, goods must do so. Unless
the Shackles can be dropped from trade, bombs will be dropped from the sky.”
Americans are not supposed to be living and dying in service of an Empire
seeking global hegemony. As the former Congressman and presidential candidate
Ron Paul once said:
…[H]ow much
longer can we afford this unnecessary and counterproductive extravagance? While
our government engages in deficit spending to fund its military exploits
overseas, detracting from our own productivity, countries like China are
filling the void by expanding their trade opportunities. I have never
understood this talk of our military presence as a “strategic reserve of
Western civilization.” Instead, the best indication of our civilization has
been our prestige in international trade. We should let the best measure of our
American greatness come from free and peaceful trade with other nations, not
from displays of our military might.
This is also
the view of current Presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. who in a major
break with the hawks in his own party, the Democrats, offers the
best option for Americans when it comes to relations with China.
During his recent Twitter space event, former Congresswoman and currently
serving Army National Guard Lieutenant Colonel Tulsi Gabbard asked Kennedy
whether war with Beijing was necessary. His answer was
clear,
Let’s
recognize the reality that China is a very ambitious nation and it does want to
compete. But the reality is it doesn’t want to compete with us militarily.
[China is] still relatively poor compared to [the United States]. I think we
[should] be competing with them. On an economic platform, not a military one.
I’m not frightened by China. That kind of competition would be good for the
whole world. It would be a collaborative competition, if you will. China does
not want a war with us. We were told after the Cold War period that we’d get a
peace dividend. We never got that peace dividend. We now spend more on our
military than the next ten countries in the world. It’s [kind of] a
self-fulfilling prophecy. We should be deescalating. We should be talking with
China, for god’s sake. We haven’t talked with them in five years. Any talks
with China should not be about military swaggering. The Chinese have been doing
a lot better than us because they’ve been projecting economic power abroad. Why
are [we] trying to create a war with China? Why are [we] making Taiwan a
military issue? Let Taiwan and China figure it out. They don’t want war. They
want prosperity. Let’s deescalate. Let’s figure out how to have a financial
relationship with them that rebuilds the American industrial base.
This is not
just Kennedy’s words, even DNI Haines admitted to
the House Intelligence Committee that the US does not assess that China wants
war.
Our nation is broke and more than
$30 trillion in debt, we cannot afford decoupling or war with China. Nor
can we morally afford another war, which decoupling, particularly under the
current circumstances, would make exponentially more likely.
In May, new research published in
a study by
Brown University’s ‘Costs of War’ project found that
“a reasonable and conservative estimate suggests that
at least 4.5 million people have died in the major post-9/11 war zones.”
The same Republicans and Democrats responsible for those wars are now leading
us down the path of violent confrontation with China. We can just say
no and enact a policy of free trade, diplomacy, and peace. It does not have to
be this way.
Connor Freeman is the assistant editor and a writer at the Libertarian Institute,
primarily covering foreign policy. He is a co-host on the Conflicts of Interest
podcast with Kyle Anzalone and Will Porter. His writing has been featured in
media outlets such as Antiwar.com, where he is a news writer, as well as
Counterpunch and the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity. He has also
appeared on Vital Dissent, Around the Empire, Crashing the War Party, and The
Scott Horton Show. You can follow him on Twitter @FreemansMind96.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario