December 17, 2013

Handle's Haus on Edward Luttwak on China

Handle's Haus is a relatively new blog of heavyweight analyses. Currently, he has up an extremely in-depth review of strategist Edward Luttwak's “The Rise of China vs. The Logic of Strategy.”
Extremely long-term strategizing involves so much complexity and uncertainty that one cannot conceive of goals in anything but large generalities.  Luttwak is, very reasonably, highly materialistic on this score, and says that Grand Strategy is largely about trying to maximize the resources and various forms of capital under the sure command of future decision makers, but even more importantly the relative advantage one has over one’s potential rivals.  It’s worth it to take oneself down a notch if it takes your adversary down two.  But the positive side of the coin of Grand Strategy involves economic growth, a large and high quality population, the accumulation of lots of cutting-edge military hardware and advanced intelligence capabilities, and the right set of international alliances. 
So, you might simplify greatly and say that Grand Strategy is, “Make Decisions So As To Be As Much Stronger Than Your Competitors As Possible In The Future”.  Doing that, and assuming everyone else is also trying to do that, is very Realpolitick. 
But there’s a catch that is similar to what Heartiste says about super-alpha Paul Walker, “Rules governing human interaction break down and recombine into strange new polarities, nearly the inverse of the laws that regulate most biocommerce between the sexes.” 
Likewise, Luttwak contends that at the higher levels of Grand Strategy the logic of ‘get big or get stomped‘ reverses paradoxically.  If you pursue military agrandizement so monomaniacally and consistently with realpolitick that you start to seriously threaten your neighbors and competitors then, if they are smart enough and act in time, you will provoke them into forming an alliance of resistance dedicated to doing whatever is necessary short of nuclear war, but including crushing your economy, to prevent you from getting big enough to dominate.  Luttwak says that the ‘realists’ are in fact fooling themselves with a delusion in regards to imagining themselves as actors with ‘free will‘ and that the sequence of international power politics is much more deterministic as all the actors are in fact, “… trapped by the paradoxes of the logic of strategy, which imposes its own imperatives …” 
In other words, pursuing the action of rapid and massive growth in your military capabilities ends up being counterproductive in that it stimulates reactions by your counterparties which will  lower your overall competitiveness.  Trying to get ahead one notch encourages your competitors to get ahead two notches.  Of course, if you [are] able to get so big, so fast, while those counterparties fail to summon their will and organize, then you pass a tipping point and really do get to dominate and stomp.  The resistance-of-rivals-to-your-expected-future-power graph is a bell curve, running from indifference to near-conflict but then back to resignation and acquiescence or even effective subservience. 
What characterizes the realm of strategy is the impossibility of achieving straightforward results by straightforward action, because others exist and others react in between the two. 
But short of that, the ideal thing to do for an emerging great power (China, in this case) would be to artificially suppress your military aggrandizement and try to influence perceptions about your country in the direction of ‘friendly’, ‘trustworthy’, ‘peaceful’, ‘non-confrontational’, ‘cooperative’ and especially ‘non-threatening’ growing out of ‘objectively not interested in domination because not interested in military power’. 
Then the people that could stop you will be lulled into just ignoring you as you are able to devote all your resources grow your economy to colossal proportions.  All butter, no guns.  And then, after you’ve built your Mt. Everest of butter, you can use it later to buy yourself a world-class regionally-dominating military in short order, too quickly to be stopped.  And then you can stomp and dominate with it.  Suckers! 
That’s what you could do, but the bottom line of Luttwak’s book is that China is making a huge unforced error in this regard by not doing this, and in fact, doing the opposite.  China is pursuing a Realpolitick National Strategy of ‘get stronger fast’ (it’s no coincidence that Kissinger’s latest book, ‘On China‘, is a collection of flattery over growth which encourages them to do this) at the expense of more subtle Grand Strategy considerations, ‘but be careful not to provoke your counterparties into reaction’. 
China is doing it wrong in two ways, especially since a well recognized ‘behavioral shift’ in 2008 coinciding with the Global Financial Crisis.  First, it is growing its Armed Forces rapidly, with impressive annual military budget increases that sometimes even exceed their stellar pace of economic growth. 
 Second, in what Luttwak calls its ‘Premature Assertiveness’, China has pursued very obnoxious, aggressive, and confrontational policies with regard to territorial, maritime, and airspace disputes with other nations in the region.  It constantly makes stubborn and uncompromising maximal claims over everything ,and it has taken risky and threatening actions over every trivial pile of rocks in the ocean that ever had a Chinese subject sing a poem in which he dreamed about stepping foot there or maybe just fishing in the general vicinity. 
Contradicting the conventional wisdom as to its ‘purely commercial’ rationale, it does this whether or not there is actually any indicated of hydrocarbon reserves nearby, which emphasizes the military and regionally hegemonic motives of behavior. 

One other thing that has changed since 2008 or so is the new assumption that oil or gas might be found anywhere. Look at the change in attitude toward North Dakota: from "Maybe we should give it back to the bison; after all, Richard Florida's Creative Class is never going to move there, so what hope does North Dakota have for economic development?" to the current situation in which the New York Times runs frequent articles on the theme of "North Dakota: Threat or Menace?" out of a sense that the last thing NYT subscribers want is Another Texas.

So it now seems like a good idea to have as much territory as possible, because who knows when it will be profitable to frack the seabed around some rocks sticking up above low tide that you had the foresight to claim back in the day. 

The return of the economic importance of possessing sheer territory has the potential to increase military tensions in a world that had been getting pretty stable as the business logic of military conquest had been ever more widely seen to be a sham, just like Norman Angell said in The Great Illusion a hundred years ago.

104 comments:

Anonymous said...

If Chinese are smart, they should know that time is on their side. All they have to do is wait. For an old civilization that lasted for so long, Chinese should know this. But they are making a lot of noise over silly islands and pissing off every neighbor and making a mess of affairs in East Asia and Southeast Asia.

Things are so different from the 1930s when Chiang didn't have time on his side. He wanted to finish off the communists, but Japan took over Manchuria and threatened other parts of China. Chinese nationalism among the masses demanded that Chiang fight the Japanese and take back Manchuria, but Chiang knew he didn't have the power to beat the Japanese and could well be beaten by them. Also, if he made common cause with communists, commies would be given a second wind after being driven nearly to extinction. He was in a terrible situation.

If he tried to fight and finish off the communists, Chinese would see him as traitor who's fighting fellow Chinese instead of making common cause with all Chinese against Japan.
If he tried to fight the Japanese, he could be clobbered, and Japan might conquer all of China.

If he did nothing, communists would rebuild and Japan might grow more adventurous and consolidate its hold over Manchuria while he lost the respect of his people.

Every possible choice was awful. But he finally acted because nationalist passion demanded that he stand up to Japan and teach the 'little dwarves' a lesson. He relented to popular will to save his credibility and legitimacy as national leader, but he would pay a heavy price; but he would have paid a heavy price no matter what he did as time was against him.

Today, China is free and a bigger power than Japan. Russia is a shell of itself and no longer the behemoth superpower it was during the Cold War. China had made great strides in economic construction. Time is on its side. All they have to do is wait, and Chinese power will grow. But the communist party played on nationalist passions, and now it fears losing face by not being tough enough with Japan, Vietnam, and other nations over silly geographical squabbles. What a waste of energy and resources.

Chiang was done in by nationalist passions that demanded that he join with communists to fight Japan even though China was in no position to fight and win. He really didn't have any good options.

Today, China only has to wait. But nationalist passions are making it do stupid things. By acting hastily and alarming its neighbors, China only has something to lose.
But dummies will be dummies.

Anonymous said...

But short of that, the ideal thing to do for an emerging great power (China, in this case) would be to artificially suppress your military aggrandizement and try to influence perceptions about your country in the direction of ‘friendly’, ‘trustworthy’, ‘peaceful’, ‘non-confrontational’, ‘cooperative’ and especially ‘non-threatening’ growing out of ‘objectively not interested in domination because not interested in military power’.

But that's not an option for China. China has no chance of influencing perceptions in a world in which the shaping of perceptions is largely monopolized and dominated by the Western elites of the "international community." Western elites are perfectly happy with Chinese slaving away in factories and running laundries and so forth, but they certainly aren't interested in giving up their monopoly on shaping "world opinion." In this environment, the only way the Chinese could influence positive perceptions of itself and get glowing coverage in The New York Times et al would be by committing suicide.

Obviously that's not the right strategy then. Presumably the Chinese understand this. It's better to have a fighting chance than commit suicide.

Anonymous said...

Today, China only has to wait. But nationalist passions are making it do stupid things. By acting hastily and alarming its neighbors, China only has something to lose.

Not necessarily. Waiting also gives the US time to cement alliances against China.

Also, anything anybody does anywhere that isn't globalist is described as the product of "nationalist passions" by liberal outlets. It's meaningless prattle.

Anonymous said...

Steve,

what to you think of the French and they way that they have held onto every scrap of the their colonial empire that they could. If Mayotte or French Guyana were English they would either be independent or part of the Comoros/Brazil.

Two questions:

Do you think that this was a good move for the French govt and the local inhabitants ?

How to the French get away with this ? Why aren't they called out as imperialists ?

AKAHorace

Anonymous said...

"Not necessarily. Waiting also gives the US time to cement alliances against China."

Because Chinese rudeness frightens its neighbors. If Chinese took things in stride in its foreign policy dealings, Asian nations will be less likely to forge close ties with the US.

Deng understood this. In the late 70s and 80s, he knew China was poor and backward and should just do business and bide its time. And he was right. China grew.
Now, China is feeling kinda superpowerish and getting ahead of itself.

Bad move. China is a big nation with a small heart.

Anonymous said...

Because Chinese rudeness frightens its neighbors. If Chinese took things in stride in its foreign policy dealings, Asian nations will be less likely to forge close ties with the US.

Taking "things in stride" could be deadly as well.

Dave Pinsen said...

Luttwak's point makes sense in the abstract, but in the specific case of China, not so much. China's neighbors would never buy the mountain of butter act - there's too much history and animosity there. China has fought wars with India, Vietnam, South Korea (and us), and Japan within living memory. No way its neighbors would ever be lulled into complacency.

The other issue Luttwak elides is national pride. If China just wanted to get rich, they'd welcome continued US naval hegemony in the region, which has been a huge economic boon for them and their neighbors. But China still smarts over 19th and 20th century humiliations.

Anonymous said...

Luttwak is wrong because American policy planners have assumed China would be building itself up militarily for decades, and have been responding accordingly by trying to forge an anti-China alliance in Asia. So if China didn't build itself militarily, it would be relatively even weaker. Obviously then it should build itself militarily, so the relative power gap isn't as large.

Anonymous said...

"Get big or get stomped".

Neither Switzerland or Sweden are "big" but they have enjoyed peace and prosperity for over 200 years.

Alliances are a mistake. Far from making you safe, they drag you into other people's quarrels. Note how the Tsar let his unspoken alliance with Serbia end up destroying his country, dynasty, family and his own life. Look how the Kaiser let his alliance with the Habsburgs draw him into an unwanted and disastrous war.

Anonymous said...

The US has military bases in Asia surrounding China, has a massive military budget, supports revolutionary activity around the world, has executed policies of pre-emption and interventionism more generally. Does anyone seriously believe that if China suppressed its military growth, the US would pack it in?

Luke Lea said...

Was it Einstein or Rabi who said right after the first atomic bomb was detonated, "Everything has changed except our way of thinking."?

Anyway I've been thinking a lot about China for the last couple of years -- and read a couple of hundred books in the process -- so a few stray thoughts from an amateur:

We should never forget that China still has a centrally planned economy by and large and that, as such, it is subject to all the errors Hayek highlighted in a system without price signals. There are mammoth mis-allocations of capital going on in China: huge free-way systems built in no-time flat, whole cities with nobody in them, mag-trains which nobody can afford to ride in, etc. (See Peter Hetzler's Country Driving.) The Chinese leadership depends on these projects to keep everybody working. But now that their national infrastructure has been (over)built-out they need more massive projects to fund (wasting their workers' life-savings in the process). A huge navy is an ideal candidate. A big airforce and lots of tanks and things will also keep factories humming, steel mills milling, etc.

In terms of actual aggression I think the most obvious candidates are Taiwan (naturally) and Kazakhstan -- the latter because it is a big, empty, mineral rich and largely defenseless target of opportunity, the former because, well, . . . because they can't think of anything better to do. And internally it will by an xenophobic bonanza sure to shut down all domestic discontent, when all those workers discover their life savings have gone up in smoke -- or rather useless, low-grade concrete.

They may be smart but when it comes to diplomacy the Chinese are hopeless bunglers with an inferiority complex and a huge chip on their shoulders. Take them two or three at a time and these people are capable of remarkable accomplishments; but take them by the millions and they are some of the craziest people on earth.

The only hope for China in the long run -- and this is strictly a personal opinion -- is Christiantity. But that will take centuries.

Anonymous said...

"economic importance of possessing sheer territory"

For some reason these future oil and gas discoveries are thought to occur on national boundaries. The Falklands and Argentina, the Aegean between Greece and Turkey. Oddly there is no mineral wealth anywhere else along the long coasts of Argentina, Greece, Turkey. All those islands Japan possesses without dispute, nothing, it is so unjust.

Perhaps the whole point of the exercise is something both sides militaries can agree on; military spending?

Oddly one explanation for Japanese wealth was they lacked natural resources so they had to build useful things like SONY walkmen to feed themselves. That probably does not sit well with the kind of Japanese that is not good at building useful things.

So how does it end? Hopefully Japanese ocean floor exploration ship Chikyu finds oil.

http://www.jamstec.go.jp/chikyu/eng/CHIKYU/history.html

Good luck Chikyu.

Anonymous said...

They may be smart but when it comes to diplomacy the Chinese are hopeless bunglers with an inferiority complex and a huge chip on their shoulders. Take them two or three at a time and these people are capable of remarkable accomplishments; but take them by the millions and they are some of the craziest people on earth.

I'm not sure what your definition of crazy is, but after being invaded by the imperial powers and Japan, building up your military capacities is not exactly crazy. It's perfectly rational.

You say you've read a couple hundred books on the subject, but apparently you've learned nothing or read all the wrong books. China historically has had long periods of amicable diplomatic relations with its neighbors.

Simon in London said...

I remember the USA saber-rattling a lot against China at the end of the 20th century. Then 9/11 and that stopped. Is the US looking to ramp that up again now?

Anonymous said...

The US has military bases in Asia surrounding China, has a massive military budget, supports revolutionary activity around the world, has executed policies of pre-emption and interventionism more generally. Does anyone seriously believe that if China suppressed its military growth, the US would pack it in?



Glance at a map and then with a straight face try that surrounding China line again. I'm going to imagine this poster loved that line when he read it in some pro-Russia or pro-Iran Daniel Larison article and figured he'd trot it out in this context and hope no one would notice.



Here's a tip Daniel Larison lies like Jennifer Rubin and get's girls like Whiskey.

Simon in London said...

From what I can tell, China's long term strategy now is what it has always been (sans brief Maoist interlude): they want to be the most powerful nation, surrounded by lesser states which acknowledge their greatness. They want the lesser states to be stable and reasonably prosperous, but not as prosperous as them. This can lead to conflict when neighbours don't wish to acknowledge China as superior.

From what I can tell, the US strategy at least since 1990 has been China's strategy, but global, not regional. However the US is more aggressive than China in requiring that the lesser states not only acknowledge US hegemon status, but also adopt US value norms. This then leads to conflict when states & societies anywhere fail to acknowledge either US hegemony or adopt US value norms; the latter is seen as a much more serious offence.

roundeye said...

A nation of only children will only start one war. But dammit, they have a lot of only children.

My longstanding belief is China is so chauvenistic that they dont care about world domination, only commercial advantage. More Byzantium than Rome.

Anonymous said...

"Neither Switzerland or Sweden are 'big' but they have enjoyed peace and prosperity for over 200 years."

They were safely situated. If Poland and Sweden had switched positions, Poland would have enjoyed peace while Sweden got stomped by Germans and Russians.

"Alliances are a mistake. Far from making you safe, they drag you into other people's quarrels."

It all depends on the nature of the alliances. The Cold War alliance was pretty effective in containing communism.
But the alliances that led to WWI were truly a disaster.

France could have sat out WWI and WWII if it just minded its own business and not made any alliance or assurances to the East. Its alliance with Russia made it fight Germany. It's assurance to Poland made it fight Germany again.

If France had stayed out of WWI, UK would have been out too. And it would have been Germany-Austria vs Russia, and Germans would have won in a year or two.
(And it's too bad that Germany sided with the Ottoman Empire. The British couldn't resist fighting the Ottomans to grab a huge chunk of the middle east.)

Whiskey said...

Steve, Pinker makes a great error in ignoring the 1945-1991 US-Soviet Nuclear Duopoly in suppressing Great (or even middling) power wars. Its as if that decision by Ike to yank support for Suez never even happened. Or the US and Soviets prevented unstable allies from dragging them into an all-out shooting war with each other.

Wars typically stem from internal problems seeking external solutions: Imperial Germany and Japan, Nazi Germany, Napoleonic France, etc. Alliances as such are natural defensive measures designed to deter attack by otherwise weak and easily picked off individual states and peoples.

Switzerland has a massive great army and favorable terrain, and only got lucky with Hitler otherwise occupied. He wanted to invade, but it would have cost too many men which he did not have by that point (1942). Sweden was all over Central and Eastern Europe in the 1600 and 1700's, until they were kicked out. Then they got lucky as covetous neighbors had more problems with each other than time for them. Finland was not so lucky.

The Concert of Europe kept the peace for nearly 100 years. It only fell down because Kaiser Wilhelm was a fool -- he let the Three Emperors League lapse, allowing Austria and Russia to fight, and picked a naval escalation build-out fight with Britain when his key objective was keeping France friendless wrt Britain and Russia.

Anonymous said...


Neither Switzerland or Sweden are "big" but they have enjoyed peace and prosperity for over 200 years.

Sweden was a poor country until right about the mid-20th century. It was the last Scandinavian country to begin industrialization. Never mind that the reason it was able to remain relatively independent was because it followed the go big model in the 17th century and then the join big model when it allied with Napoleonic France. So basically your argument boils down to one geographically perfectly suited country, Switzerland, and the 150 years in which Sweden was relatively neutral. Of course that period corresponded with the rise of balance of power diplomacy in which the larger nations were committed to resisting each others expansion. So Sweden did not get stomped because it got to free ride of larger powers commitment to prevent their rivals from expanding. Additionally, it is arguable how free Sweden was during WW2. Sweden also enjoyed tacit defense agreements with the USA throughout the Cold War.


So let me re-write your comment Switzerland a topographical anomaly of a country with almost no natural resources was able to stay free, neutral and prosperous for the last 200 years. Sweden was able to be a free but rarely neutral poor country for the last 200 years. Geeze doesn't sound as convincing in fact sounds down right non-convincing.

Anonymous said...

"In terms of actual aggression I think the most obvious candidates are Taiwan (naturally) and Kazakhstan -- the latter because it is a big, empty, mineral rich and largely defenseless target of opportunity, the former because, well, . . ."

Kazakhstan? No way. It would make China a pariah nation trusted by no one, and Russia and all Central Asian nations and Middle East nations(and the US) will unite against China.

Also, China has its hands full with Uighurs. The last thing they need is more angry Muslims.

As Mongolia was historically part of the Chinese empire, Chinese would like to absorb that--and Mao was upset that Stalin insisted on Mongolian independence--, but Chinese don't wanna mess with that either. Not yet anyway. Chinese figure that as Mongolia becomes economically connected with China, it will defacto be a part of China... like how the US sees Canada.

Power Child said...

The return of the economic importance of possessing sheer territory

Positive implications there for neocons, for sure, but also potentially for citizenists. After all, isn't "national borders don't matter anymore" a rallying cry of the globalists and pro-immigrationists?

Having frackable land might not directly translate into sensible immigration policy, but it at least brings the idea of national sovereignty and the idea of having the right to control what goes on in and around one's own borders back into political discourse.

Anonymous said...

Glance at a map and then with a straight face try that surrounding China line again. I'm going to imagine this poster loved that line when he read it in some pro-Russia or pro-Iran Daniel Larison article and figured he'd trot it out in this context and hope no one would notice.

"Surrounded: How the U.S. Is Encircling China with Military Bases"

killerapps.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/08/20/surrounded_how_the_us_is_encircling_china_with_military_bases

" The U.S. military is encircling China with a chain of air bases and military ports. The latest link: a small airstrip on the tiny Pacific island of Saipan. The U.S. Air Force is planning to lease 33 acres of land on the island for the next 50 years to build a "divert airfield" on an old World War II airbase there. But the residents don't want it. And the Chinese are in no mood to be surrounded by Americans.

The Pentagon's big, new strategy for the 21st century is something called Air-Sea Battle, a concept that's nominally about combining air and naval forces to punch through the increasingly-formidable defenses of nations like China or Iran. It may sound like an amorphous strategy -- and truth be told, a lot of Air-Sea Battle is still in the conceptual phase. But a very concrete part of this concept is being put into place in the Pacific. An important but oft-overlooked part of Air-Sea Battle calls for the military to operate from small, bare bones bases in the Pacific that its forces can disperse to in case their main bases are targeted by Chinese ballistic missiles."

Steve Sailer said...

The Chinese Missile Corps can't look up the GPS coordinates of Saipan? I'm sure the Saipanese appreciate the Pentagon's interest in painting a big bullseye on their little island.

Anonymous said...

"Surrounded: How the U.S. Is Encircling China with Military Bases"

killerapps.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/08/20/surrounded_how_the_us_is_encircling_china_with_military_bases

So rather than glance at a map you glanced at google. Not a good play. China is bordered by my count 12 countries the United States has a presence in one (Kyrgyzstan which it has to vacate in 2014) for a mission completely unrelated to China. China finds itself encircled by traditional rivals because it acts like a typical little dicked tough guy the second it thinks it sees a chance to overpower one of its neighbors. By your logic the Soviet Union had the US surrounded by placing nuclear weapons in Cuba. Yea the US is loving the whirl wind the little dicked dragon kicked up, but it is by means encircling the dragon it just would prefer that millions of Chinese soldiers don't swarm into its neighbors in search of brides.

Bert said...

I'm not a big fan of Daniel Larison anymore, but he's married and is a smart guy. Don't spew hate at him.

I wonder if this will open up Africa to foreign occupation again...

Simon in London said...

I saw some stuff in that blog post that didn't seem to tally with what actual Chinese and Mongolians have told me (often while inebriated): :)
1. Mongolia is already a US client, having left Russian control after the Cold War.
2. The Chinese regard the West as a major civilisation, not traditional barbarians, but one that is in decline/on the way out. So 'peaceful rise' strategy vis-a-vis the USA makes sense since they reckon they will be around long after the US has gone.

Everything I've seen indicates that China definitely does not want to fight the USA, and would not launch a Pearl Harbour attack, because everyone knows about US maximal response (something Al Qaeda used to its own advantage with 9/11). And nukes of course. The Chinese military does train to fight the US in the near abroad (as in the Korean War) and within China, but the assumption is that the US would be the aggressor, intervening on behalf of a US ally.

Handle said...

You make a good point about the new optimism about hydrocarbons. However, the argument cuts both ways. The question is always whether the expected benefits of acquiring or fighting over some god-forsaken rock are worth the costs in terms of damaged foreign relations. But the nation the rock is being taken from also has the same reasons to value that rock even more than they did before the innovations in extractive technology. So, since the winner’s gain is the loser’s loss, then the greater the incentive, the greater the provocation and response. It seems to me to cancel out.

All additional territory is always potentially valuable in some way, if even as mere military outposts for surveillance, power projection, logistics, and rapid response. All those tiny South Pacific atolls are still very useful for the U.S., even without oil and gas.

The Naval portion of the Chinese long-term ‘Domains’ strategy is to exclusively dominate the Western Pacific, intimidating all other regional nations to disassociate with American, and thus pushing the U.S. 7th Fleet out to Hawaii so that the Pacific has to be shared between two great powers once more. Last time that didn’t work out so well.

Anonymous said...

China finds itself encircled by traditional rivals because it acts like a typical little dicked tough guy the second it thinks it sees a chance to overpower one of its neighbors. By your logic the Soviet Union had the US surrounded by placing nuclear weapons in Cuba. Yea the US is loving the whirl wind the little dicked dragon kicked up, but it is by means encircling the dragon it just would prefer that millions of Chinese soldiers don't swarm into its neighbors in search of brides.

So according to you, the US isn't surrounding China despite all evidence to the contrary, and despite China acting in ways which would merit such a response from the US.

Who are these "traditional rivals"? Korea and even Japan haven't been "traditional rivals" of China.

The better analogy would be if the Soviet Union had bases and client regimes in Canada and Mexico and tens of thousands of troops there, like the US does in South Korea and Japan.

Anonymous said...

The better analogy would be if the Soviet Union had bases and client regimes in Canada and Mexico and tens of thousands of troops there, like the US does in South Korea and Japan.

So my points stands excellent the US will not have a single base in a country neighboring China in 2014. The rest of your comment is just noise. You can't surround someone if you don't have any bases you know around their country. And if Japan isn't analogous to Cuba I don't know what else to tell you other than get a map.

Billie Jean King said...

Anonymous said "So basically your argument boils down to one geographically perfectly suited country, Switzerland, and the 150 years in which Sweden was relatively neutral."

Excellent comment. The depth and breadth of historical knowledge by (some, not Whiskey) posters on this site can be breathtaking.

There is another country I can think of that is uniquely situated - perhaps more so than any other country in history - to be a neutral country enjoying peace and prosperity. Here is a hint - it has oceans on two sides, a friendly neighbor to the North, and a dysfunctional basket case to the South.

Instead we wander the globe in search of minor ethnic squabbles in which to become involved. And now we're sending a gaggle of perverts to the Winter Olympics to pester the Russians.

Anonymous said...

Bert you are right that was an over-the-top attack, but I don't really see why a bona-fide Russian nationalist shouldn't get called out especially when he accuses AIPAC of dual loyalties routinely. I don't know enough about AIPAC to know whether he is right or wrong but it isn't an accusation he should ever level.

Anonymous said...

Luttwak is right. If only China didn't build up its military, then the US would draw down the military and unwind its alliances in Asia. Maybe Pat Buchanan would finally be elected president and sign an executive order to finally bring the boys home....

Just like how after the Soviet Union collapsed and the Soviet military-industrial complex was being broken apart and sold off, NATO was disbanded and the US didn't try to expand NATO up to Russia's borders....

Anonymous said...

So my points stands excellent the US will not have a single base in a country neighboring China in 2014.

None of your points stand. Korea and Japan do neighbor China.

And the fact that you brought Larison into this suggests you're an unhinged neocon.

Anonymous said...

Bert you are right that was an over-the-top attack, but I don't really see why a bona-fide Russian nationalist shouldn't get called out especially when he accuses AIPAC of dual loyalties routinely. I don't know enough about AIPAC to know whether he is right or wrong but it isn't an accusation he should ever level.

Is that you, David Frum?

http://www.businessinsider.com/is-vladimir-putin-a-us-style-conservative-2013-12

""Is Vladimir Putin a paleo-conservative?" right wing commentator Pat Buchanan wrote in a column for Townhall yesterday. "In the culture war for mankind's future, is he one of us?"

With that simple question, Buchanan has done the unthinkable — empathized with Russia's evil president — and the online world is outraged.

"Putin is a killer, a despot, and a thief on a world-historical scale," the Daily Beast's David Frum tweeted this afternoon, "but the important thing is that he hates gays!""

Anonymous said...

Bert you are right that was an over-the-top attack, but I don't really see why a bona-fide Russian nationalist shouldn't get called out especially when he accuses AIPAC of dual loyalties routinely. I don't know enough about AIPAC to know whether he is right or wrong but it isn't an accusation he should ever level.

Russian nationalism isn't against the interests of the historic American nation like AIPAC and its supporters are.

Bert said...

I don't see how Larison is a Russian nationalist. Perhaps his Orthodoxy does influence his feelings, but it's more likely that he's just sick of the pointless anti-Russian invective and paranoia that infects the foreign policy establishment and the GOP.

A strong Russia is in everyone's best interests, yet the US and it's flunkies continue to harass Moscow and prop up a pointless, worthless country (Ukraine).

ATBOTL said...

"Russian nationalism isn't against the interests of the historic American nation like AIPAC and its supporters are."

The Dispossessed Majority advocated an alliance of Northern European people, including Russians.

sunbeam said...

Geez.

Remember that Shakespeare quote: "Full of sound and fury, and signifying nothing."

A younger me read Luttwak. A lot of other similar authors.

An older me looks at them and thinks they are full of BS, and don't know their butt from a hole in the ground.

Like most of us here, I've developed a set of beliefs about how things work.

We have "situations." Geography, mineral resources, technology, ... genetics and the abilities of populations.

Then by a phenomena akin to natural selection a system to organize these things arises. Now if successful, the system may be aped by others, though the basics may not be applicable to other countries, or should I say systems.

But it's all just a moment. Things are constantly changing.

Now guys like Luttwak read history and imagine it is all about decisions made here, or a great man there. Makes better theater and more interesting books, but it the end it is utterly wrong.

There is another old quote I read somewhere and don't know the assignation: "When it's steam engine time, it's steam engine time."

A lot is contained in that phrase, and it can be used to describe a lot of trends and events, even if it sounds simplistic.

And just as an FYI, shale oil and gas isn't some limitless bonanza. A pleasant surprise, but no more than a blip in the big picture.

At least in the US. Ten years from now pretty much all the economically recoverable shale resource is going to have been exploited in North America. Actually I'd give it five years, but the timetable doesn't concern me much, so I'll give myself what I consider a comfortable margin.

Of much more interest is exactly how much is recoverable worldwide. I haven't seen much on this, so we might have another pleasant surprise. Or it might be a blip. It's hard to pin down something that might only be possible to implement in a country like this, with ample people skilled in the field, machinery, and above all an excellent transportation and pipeline system.

Put the Bakken Shale 2000 miles away from anything in Siberia, and you might never had heard of it, and never would.

And you guys from the Western US: yeah it's big. But there are places a whole lot bigger and more remote.

Pretty much need that sweet setup Saudi Arabia had back in the day to make it worthwhile to ramp up production.

5371 said...

Luttwak, like most lazy or dishonest people who have expressed themselves on the subject, is drawing a parallel between modern China and twentieth century Germany. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Germany was doomed if the USA and Russia both lined up against her. There's no-one out there bigger than China.
As for the Diaoyu islands, Japan is the power that exploded a dormant dispute with its provocative actions. That was unwise.

Jerry said...

China certainly does not have time. It is the fastest-aging country on earth. If in the 1990's the collapse of the Soviet Union was China's example of how not to go, Japan's aimless post-consumerist senescence may be more on its mind these days. To keep its people from being mere consumers, and with the option of turning them into citizens not available, raw nationalism seems to be the choice they want to make.

Steve, you are not going to get a serious discussion in this comment thread. Some people will go on about "yellow peril," others will talk about the US as if it were some kind of evil empire... none of this makes any sense. Let's remember that China spends more on "internal security" than on its military. I live in Hong Kong, so I am not going to go out on a limb about the Chinese state. (Google did abandon a big data center project here in HK a few days ago, btw.)

someone wrote:

France could have sat out WWI and WWII if it just minded its own business and not made any alliance or assurances to the East. Its alliance with Russia made it fight Germany. It's assurance to Poland made it fight Germany again.

This is erroneous. France was invaded by Germany in 1914, hardly giving it any options. In 1939, France's (and the UK's) "alliance" with Poland was not worth the paper it was written on. France and Britain declared war on Germany, and... that was it. Not a single shot was fired. After Hitler was done with Poland, he turned his attention on France. It folded more quickly than Poland did, even though Poland was invaded by the Soviet Union from the east shortly after Hitler invaded from the West.

5371 said...

China certainly does not have time. It is the fastest-aging country on earth

I hear this soundbite a lot, but I have never heard anyone back it up with actual figures.

Anonymous said...

Has Luttwak never heard of the prisoner's dilemma? People don't willingly suppress their military ability, even if it'd be nicer if everyone did, because just because one party does, doesn't mean another party will. So everyone ends up trying to maintain their military ability. You can announce that you're not going to bring your pistol to the duel with the hope that your opponent will also leave his pistol at home. But there's no guarantee that he won't bring his pistol to the duel and shoot you anyway. The stakes are high. So you take your pistol with you.

Anonymous said...

So it now seems like a good idea to have as much territory as possible, because who knows when it will be profitable to frack the seabed around some rocks sticking up above low tide that you had the foresight to claim back in the day.

Canada just made huge bids for territory in the Atlantic and the Arctic, including for the North Pole itself. These areas are believed to hold huge energy deposits.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/12/canada-uses-scientific-geographical.html#more

Anonymous said...

Don't have much to add to the Big Important Geostrategic Stuff you men are debating except to say the back story of this anti-CNMI web site sounds like a good sitcom premise.

Anonymous said...

A weighty and prolix analysis that mostly flew right over my head, to be honest with you, Steve.

As I understand it, in my usual simplistic Economist-bashing poker-game way it's like this:

Basically, the west and the uSA inparticular were taken unawares by China's stratospheric rise. Cast your minds back 30 or so years ago. What was all the talk of back then ? - remember that it was all about China being a 'huge market' and thus enormously beneficial to western properity. The notion that in practice it worked out the other way ie China exploited the west as a 'huge market and opportunity' never really entered their heads.
Basically, China cleaned the west's clock and come out on top. Add to this adverse demographic trends in the west and the utter, utter failure of the EU into a mire of stagnation and deflation.
Let's get back to basics. The name of the game is money. Wealth. Forget about the B%2s and the boys' toys for a moment. Look at the trend growth lines. Exponential growth of around 10% per annum year-in year-out versus decacdes of stagnation. Just brute mathematical fact. Who's going to be the winner of that contest? Hint - think of a pin head's worth of algae on a vasty vasty lake, or that Apple was intially a couple of geeks in a garage. And there's no sign of the mojo going away.

Anonymous said...

This is erroneous. France was invaded by Germany in 1914, hardly giving it any options.

No, thats erroneous.

France was invaded solely because it was allied with Russia. Germany couldnt hope to defeat Russia quickly and certainly not in a two front war thus the attack in 1914 was meant to knock out France quickly and get on with the real life-or-death struggle with Russia.

Germany didnt have any war aims regarding French territory (Alsace-Lorraine was German after 1870) it merely needed France not to fight.

Same deal in 1939/40. Hitler didnt want to fight France (getting back Alsace-Lorraine excepted) or Britain, he was focused on Russia.

Anonymous said...

So let me re-write your comment Switzerland a topographical anomaly of a country with almost no natural resources was able to stay free, neutral and prosperous for the last 200 years. Sweden was able to be a free but rarely neutral poor country for the last 200 years. Geeze doesn't sound as convincing in fact sounds down right non-convincing.

What you get when everyone tries to be Switzerland or Sweden, apart from the aggressive powers, is China, a unitary empire. This is the fate that awaits the Far East - each will try to be Switzerland and attempt to "mediate" (like the late ROK prez Roh Moo-hyun) between the US and China, until Uncle Sam loses interest in defending countries that don't seem concerned enough about their sovereignty to fight for it. The Orient is willing to defend itself (from the Chinese) to the last dead American. I'm not sure the average American is quite as enthused about spending large amounts of cash and dealing with significant body counts from warding off the Chinese when its Far Eastern "allies" want to be conscientious objectors.

Conatus said...

Billy Jean King
"There is another country I can think of that is uniquely situated - perhaps more so than any other country in history - to be a neutral country enjoying peace and prosperity. Here is a hint - it has oceans on two sides, a friendly neighbor to the North, and a dysfunctional basket case to the South."

Agreed! Check out the Wikipedia entry "List of Countries by Military expenditures"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

We spend 40% of the world's total on Military stuff, China spends 20% of the world's total. We spend 4.4% of our yearly GDP, China spends 2%. We double the threatening Chinese in both categories! Why are we taxing our middle class to penury(17 trillion owed) in order to maintain safe sea lanes and a pacific Eurasian land mass so China and other countries can transport manufactured goods to the US so we can buy those manufactured goods and lose our jobs? What's with that?
Let's wave the flag, act real tough, start a few more bulls**t wars so we can be hard asses when the formation of fighter jets fly by at the beginning of the football game and then somber at halftime for two minutes for our wounded.

Then back to the game.

Anonymous said...

Has Luttwak never heard of the prisoner's dilemma? People don't willingly suppress their military ability, even if it'd be nicer if everyone did, because just because one party does, doesn't mean another party will.

The countries of the Far East aren't going to bite off a chunk of China, and their military expenditures have been declining since the Cold War ended, to the point that most spend even less than the NATO countries as a % of GDP, except apart from Japan, South Korea and the Philippines, they don't have a formal alliance with Uncle Sam as insurance. These countries are ripe for the picking. The Chinese see this and will move in for the kill if the US doesn't get involved. Remember Saddam's move into Kuwait? That's the model for Chinese expansion, except China is so many times more powerful than Iraq, that Uncle Sam would have to think twice before getting involved.

Anonymous said...

"What was all the talk of back then ? - remember that it was all about China being a 'huge market' and thus enormously beneficial to western properity. The notion that in practice it worked out the other way ie China exploited the west as a 'huge market and opportunity' never really entered their heads.
Basically, China cleaned the west's clock and come out on top."

Actually, the globalists came out on top. We talk of trade imbalance but most of the profits went into the pockets of globalists. Chinese don't own the globalist companies but simply operate as contractors to provide labor for globalist companies like Apple and Walmart.
Indeed, given all the massive work Chinese have provided, they've really gotten a pittance. Most of the profits went into coffers of companies like Apple, Sony, Samsung, etc.
If American workers had done that much work, they would have 100x what China did.

Also, much of the trade surplus goes to buying US bonds which means the money stays in America.
Since China depend on American markets, China has to prop up our economy. Since dollars are the world currency, we can keep printing more money. We need not worry about inflation because of the availability of cheap labor around the world tapped into by globalism: the fracking of labor from all corners of the world.

And if we really don't want to pay in the long run, there are endless numbers of excuses--human rights, Chinese aggression, China's relations with Iran, etc--we can use to freeze Chinese assets and welch on the agreements--and even trigger a war to destroy China's military. Chinese are novices and don't know the game they are playing. They provided the labor, we got the goods, and they think we owe them the trade deficit, but there many ways for us to engineer those deficits to our advantage.

The Middle kingdom trusting America is like Middle America trusting Wall Street. It's a fool's game.

Of course, Chinese are very corrupt and no less venal than American elites, but they are amateurs at this game.

Anonymous said...

"China certainly does not have time. It is the fastest-aging country on earth."

There are advantages and disadvantages. Disadvantage is the need to care of lots of old people. Advantage is China will have a smaller population as it should as it now has too many people.

China has 1.3 billion people, so trimming down to 900 million in the foreseeable future will be a good thing, esp as low paying manufacturing jobs may become obsolete in the near future.

Japan, Taiwan, and Korea may be vulnerable in losing population because they don't have huge populations. But even if Chinese population were to be halved, you still have 650 million people.

And Chinese won't spend too much taking of the old. American senior citizens receive all sorts of things. Chinese elderly will get very little, so it will cost the state much less.

Anonymous said...

"This is erroneous. France was invaded by Germany in 1914, hardly giving it any options."

But why did Germany attack France? Because it knew France would join Russia in attacking Germany. Ever since 1870, the French had been burning for revenge and prior to the breakout of aggression, the French masses were all excited about war and singing songs about how French troops are gonna be in Berlin no time soon.
Germany preemptively hit France because France was preparing to attack Germany. If not for the alliance with Russia and French enthusiasm over the looming conflict, Germany would not have fought France.

"In 1939, France's (and the UK's) 'alliance' with Poland was not worth the paper it was written on. France and Britain declared war on Germany, and... that was it. Not a single shot was fired."

But declaration of war is declaration of war. It meant UK and France would begin rearmament for future conflict. It would mean Germany would be vulnerable to possible attack from the west if it were to attack the east.

To an extent, Hitler learned from WWI. Do not fight two-front wars. So, Hitler made a pact with Stalin and took Poland together.
If Germany fought both France and Russia in WWI, Hitler finished off France first before eyeing Russia for the opportune moment.

But as UK was still standing, Hitler did end up fighting a two front war. In retrospect, from a military viewpoint, Germany should have built massive bombers and aerial transport squadrons and placed priority in invading UK.

But such allocation of resources would have delayed his plan to invade Russia, and Stalin would have grown stronger and wiser in the meantime.
With UK in Germany's bag, Stalin would have been far more suspicious of Hitler's intentions. After all, Stalin was convinced that Hitler wouldn't attack Russia not because he trusted Hitler but because he was convinced that Hitler had his hands full with Britain. With Britain out of the way(under German occupation), Stalin would have thought Russia might be next and prepared for an invasion. That would have robbed Germany of the element of surprise.

5371 said...

Germany wasn't planning on a "life-or-death struggle with Russia" in 1914. It wasn't 1941. She was planning to end her encirclement for good. Her war plans started with an invasion of France simply because that was the only alternative which could achieve a quick result, as you can see from the map. Peace with Russia would have been made quickly if she had been victorious in the west.

5371 said...

Tip of the hat to sunbeam for calling the shale hype.

Chicago said...

It's not a secret that China set itself the goal of development and becoming a modern industrial country. We've willingly helped them along in this, not just by doing a lot of business with them but also in the transference of knowledge to them; many of their students have studied here then gone back to form the next generation of scientists and engineers.
Is all this really about some rocks in the ocean that may or may not have some value or are there other things involved? Use of the term 'threat' seems to be applied to countries that develop to the point that they can credibly defend themselves. There's the pitter-patter of war drums being played in the distance out there somewhere for whatever reason.

Anonymous said...

"Germany wasn't planning on a 'life-or-death struggle with Russia' in 1914. It wasn't 1941. She was planning to end her encirclement for good. Her war plans started with an invasion of France simply because that was the only alternative which could achieve a quick result, as you can see from the map. Peace with Russia would have been made quickly if she had been victorious in the west."

You're missing the big picture.
Germany had no squabbles with France after 1870. It wanted peace with France. But the French were in vengeful mood, just like Hitler during the interwar period.
If Germany could have avoided a war with France, it would done so. Germany despaired of France's alliance with Russia and tried to persuade the French to abandon such an alliance. But the French were livid with rage after 1870. It wanted revenge and to take Alsace Lorraine back. So, the Franco-German hostility was one-sided. Germany wanted peace but France was looking to get even. Similarly, during the interwar period, UK and France wanted peace with Germany, but Hitler wanted to 'get even'(though his main objective was to grab land from the east than fight the west, which he was forced to do when UK and France declared war).

In contrast to the one-sided animus in Franco-German relations, there were serious hostilities between Germany(and pan-Germanic folks) and Russians(and pan-Slavic folks). If not for the crazy quilt Austro-Hungarian empire, Germany and Russia would likely have come to terms. But Germany sided with Germanic folks who ruled the Austro-Hungarian empire and Russia sided with the Slavic folks who were 'oppressed' in the Austo-Hungarian empire. So, it wasn't so much Germanism vs Russianism as pan-Germanism vs pan-Slavism. The animus went both ways.

Actually, Russia could have settled for peace much earlier by conceding some territories--which is what the Bolsheviks eventually did once they came to power. But the Tsar couldn't make such a peace because he'd hyped himself as the holy patriach of Slavic folks. He would have lost face and legitimacy if he made peace without victory. And Kerensky the patriot was also reluctant to make peace at a loss of Russian Imperial territory and pride.

Germany sought to take out France first not because Russia would suddenly turn around and make peace but because Germany could then use all its might to defeat Russia. As long as the Tsar and patriotic forces ruled Russia, Germany knew it would be winner-takes-all. Tsar entered WW
I as not just another war but as a HOLY war with himself as the father to oppressed Slavs under Germanic rule. There was too much passions involved, too much at stake.

Pride matters in war. The reason why the US was reluctant to pull out of Vietnam--even though things got worse and worse--had much to do with pride as the tough nation that never lost a war and as the free nation that stands by its allies against communism.

Simon in London said...

anon:
"And if we really don't want to pay in the long run, there are endless numbers of excuses--human rights, Chinese aggression, China's relations with Iran, etc--we can use to freeze Chinese assets and welch on the agreements--and even trigger a war to destroy China's military. Chinese are novices and don't know the game they are playing. They provided the labor, we got the goods, and they think we owe them the trade deficit, but there many ways for us to engineer those deficits to our advantage. "

This is true - and not enough remarked on - but on the other hand it does leave China with an established industrial base (and US manufacturing hollowed out). That base could, with pain, be turned to other uses, such as providing consumer goods for the Chinese home market, or converted to military production as the US manufacturing base was in 1942.

anon:
"France was invaded solely because it was allied with Russia. Germany couldnt hope to defeat Russia quickly and certainly not in a two front war thus the attack in 1914 was meant to knock out France quickly and get on with the real life-or-death struggle with Russia."

True, though the irony of history is that nobody realised that at the time defence was vastly superior to offence on the Western Front. In retrospect Germany should have lured France into catastrophic offences and bled her white (which she did do eventually) while making peaceful noises to all the Western allies - France, Britain & Belgium (which is impossible if you attack somebody first).

Somebody mentioned commentators seeing America as an evil empire. I don't see America as evil, but she certainly seeks hegemony, which is the whole point of all those realpolitik analyses - that she behaves like other dominant nations.

anon:"...countries that don't seem concerned enough about their sovereignty to fight for it. The Orient is willing to defend itself (from the Chinese) to the last dead American."

A less derogatory way of putting it is that these are 'bandwagon' cultures, not 'tall poppy' cultures. Rather than unite against the biggest most powerful nation in the traditional Western manner, they normally prefer to try to ride its coat tails to their advantage. They'll bandwagon the US, or China - whoever is dominant.

anon:
"These countries are ripe for the picking. The Chinese see this and will move in for the kill if the US doesn't get involved. Remember Saddam's move into Kuwait? That's the model for Chinese expansion"

I don't think that is right in general, though the Iraq-Kuwait analogy might be applicable to China-Taiwan. China's normal geopolitical strategy centres on being surrounded by weaker *but stable* nations that all acknowledge Chinese superiority. This requires that China not frequently invade them, though occasional slap-down border wars are ok, if victory seems certain. The strategy requires that territorial expansion over time be slow and gradual.

Jill said...

China is now handling trade disputes as if they are a military exercise...

"InterDigital Inc. (IDCC) said China threatened to arrest or detain its employees over a bid to collect patent royalties from Huawei Technologies Co., amid tightened Chinese government scrutiny of business practices."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-16/interdigital-ceo-says-chinese-threats-over-huawei-fight.html

Matra said...

So my points stands excellent the US will not have a single base in a country neighboring China in 2014.

Saying Korea, Japan, and even Afghanistan are not neighbours is like saying the guy whose house is directly across the road from mine or two doors down is not a neighbour because our properties don't meet. You are defining neighbours and neighbourhood in your own unique way rendering your comments meaningless.

Hunsdon said...

Anonydroid at 6:22 PM said: I don't really see why a bona-fide Russian nationalist shouldn't get called out especially when he accuses AIPAC of dual loyalties routinely. I don't know enough about AIPAC to know whether he is right or wrong but it isn't an accusation he should ever level.

Hunsdon said: You don't know if the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee has dual loyalty? When it mentions two nation-states in its title, that might be a giveaway.

As for why Larison (or anyone else) shouldn't level such accusations, dear sir, I ask: why not?

Paul Mendez said...

China had made great strides in economic construction. Time is on its side. All they have to do is wait, and Chinese power will grow.

Wrong. China has reached the apex of its rise, and its leaders know it.

The history of China is a cycle of unifications and disintegrations. The country is on the verge of another disintegration phase, as economic growth stalls and problems like an aging population, pollution and ethnic turmoil become unsustainable.

Anonymous said...

The countries of the Far East aren't going to bite off a chunk of China, and their military expenditures have been declining since the Cold War ended, to the point that most spend even less than the NATO countries as a % of GDP, except apart from Japan, South Korea and the Philippines, they don't have a formal alliance with Uncle Sam as insurance. These countries are ripe for the picking. The Chinese see this and will move in for the kill if the US doesn't get involved. Remember Saddam's move into Kuwait? That's the model for Chinese expansion, except China is so many times more powerful than Iraq, that Uncle Sam would have to think twice before getting involved.

It's nothing like this at all. The Chinese want China friendly regimes in East Asia.

Anonymous said...

Jerry
I have seen these "China is ageing" comments a lot, one also hears the neocons spout the "healthy" demographics of places like America or Britain. They forget to mention the part that the demographic increases are generally from populations that come from places that never are talked about as great powers or even potential future powers in any respected international power politics site.

Yes, I know this is utterly un PC, but I cannot ignore the evidence, places like Latin America or Africa have shown zero evidence that their societies will become rich or powerful. The history of China shows that it can, there also exist places like Hong Kong or Taiwan that point to potential.

In China it is easy envisage how they can very quickly drop one child policy and even push for a population boom. For the West, this is practically impossible, the non white populations will increase, the white population will continue to decline. I have read all the arguments, pollution, freedom, one child policy, democracy etc. but in the end the people are what matters. The West is committing suicide, China does not seem to doing so, yet.

Anonymous said...

the only way the Chinese could influence positive perceptions of itself and get glowing coverage in The New York Times et al would be by committing suicide...

I think you’re thinking of what white males, or Republicans, need to do in order to influence positive perceptions. For other groups, the rules are different. The followers of the religion of peace, for example continue to blow up discos and stone gay people, and yet the primary focus of international rage regarding homophobia is, if I understand the memo, to be directed at Russia. So, when Wen Jiabao generates as much bad press as Putin, check back with us. Until then, admit that China could just as easily improve coverage over its brutality by multiplying it ten-fold as it could by reducing it by a tenth.

Anthony said...

Anonymous @ 4:00pm:

"For some reason these future oil and gas discoveries are thought to occur on national boundaries. The Falklands and Argentina, the Aegean between Greece and Turkey. Oddly there is no mineral wealth anywhere else along the long coasts of Argentina, Greece, Turkey. All those islands Japan possesses without dispute, nothing, it is so unjust."

Oil and gas fields attract national boundaries.

Anonymous said...

I think you’re thinking of what white males, or Republicans, need to do in order to influence positive perceptions. For other groups, the rules are different. The followers of the religion of peace, for example continue to blow up discos and stone gay people, and yet the primary focus of international rage regarding homophobia is, if I understand the memo, to be directed at Russia. So, when Wen Jiabao generates as much bad press as Putin, check back with us. Until then, admit that China could just as easily improve coverage over its brutality by multiplying it ten-fold as it could by reducing it by a tenth.

I would admit it if it were true, but it's not.

Yes, there's no question that there are different rules for different groups and that it's even harder for white males and Republicans, but that doesn't mean China can influence positive perceptions from The New York Times et al short of committing suicide.

Anonymous said...

I don't think that is right in general, though the Iraq-Kuwait analogy might be applicable to China-Taiwan. China's normal geopolitical strategy centres on being surrounded by weaker *but stable* nations that all acknowledge Chinese superiority. This requires that China not frequently invade them, though occasional slap-down border wars are ok, if victory seems certain. The strategy requires that territorial expansion over time be slow and gradual.

For a continent-sized country like China, the conquest of any country in the Far East is the definition of slow and gradual. The conquest of Tibet (~20% of China's territory) was accomplished in a single gulp, as was the conquest of East Turkistan (now Xinjiang), also 20% of China's territory. None of the countries in the Far East, apart from Indonesia, is remotely near 20% of China's territory. You are thinking of China's moves during its weakling phase in the 19th and 20th centuries, not a China that has a bigger economy and military than the combined totals of its future provinces.

Anonymous said...

Hunsdon said: You don't know if the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee has dual loyalty? When it mentions two nation-states in its title, that might be a giveaway.

As for why Larison (or anyone else) shouldn't level such accusations, dear sir, I ask: why not?


Russia killed 100K Americans by proxy during the Korean and Vietnam Wars, while threatening us with nukes during the Cold War. If dual loyalty tests become de rigeur, it is Russians who should be raked over the coals. It is my hope that we eventually repay them in full.

Svigor said...

It’s worth it to take oneself down a notch if it takes your adversary down two.

Sorta like spreading cultural poison and decay that you know your rivals are more vulnerable to than your own people are?

As for China, I always weight my considerations with the assumption that eyes on the ground are better than eyes in the sky; that people dealing with a situation know quite a bit that we don't see from afar. The Chinese probably know something we don't about China.

And maybe they aren't interested in as much stomping as we're afraid they are. That would explain why they haven't pursued the (admittedly maximally Machiavellian) "Mountain of Butter." Or maybe they're more afraid of short term strategic considerations.

China is bordered by my count 12 countries the United States has a presence in one (Kyrgyzstan which it has to vacate in 2014)

Afghanistan borders China. Most of central America doesn't border the US; how would we respond to the Chinese building bases there?

China finds itself encircled by traditional rivals because it acts like a typical little dicked tough guy the second it thinks it sees a chance to overpower one of its neighbors.

I'm always amazed at how many people seem to ignore the possibility that China might (rightly) view, say, the United States invading Vietnam or Korea the way the United States would view China invading Canada or Mexico; the US occupying Korea the way the US would view China occupying Mexico; the US taking over Japan's security duties the way the US would view China taking over Mexico's security duties.

Just sayin'.

By your logic the Soviet Union had the US surrounded by placing nuclear weapons in Cuba.

?

Isn't that exactly how the US reacted?

The Chinese regard the West as a (long-run inferior but) major civilisation, not traditional barbarians, but one that is in decline/on the way out. So 'peaceful rise' strategy vis-a-vis the USA makes sense since they reckon they will be around long after the US has gone.

FIFY.

China certainly does not have time. It is the fastest-aging country on earth.

China has about a billion people in an area no bigger than the east coast USA. They can afford to lose a lot of that population. They'd be better off losing a lot of that population.

Has Luttwak never heard of the prisoner's dilemma?

That was my first thought as well.

Paul Mendez said...

Russia killed 100K Americans by proxy during the Korean and Vietnam Wars, while threatening us with nukes during the Cold War.

Russia lost 26+ million killed fighting the Nazis on our behalf.

We also killed 28,000 Russians by proxy during the Afghan war, while threatening them with nukes during the Cold War.

Finally, we sent in hordes Wall Street rapists to destroy their economy and impoverished their people after the fall of Communism.

So what's your point?

Anonymous said...

Russia killed 100K Americans by proxy during the Korean and Vietnam Wars, while threatening us with nukes during the Cold War. If dual loyalty tests become de rigeur, it is Russians who should be raked over the coals. It is my hope that we eventually repay them in full.

That was the Soviet Union, not Russian nationalists.

And if that's what the Russians deserve, then neocons like you deserve a lot worse.

Anonymous said...

It's nothing like this at all. The Chinese want China friendly regimes in East Asia.

The steps in the Chinese foreign policy cycle, during China's periods of overwhelming power, went like this:

(1) Establish friendly tributary relations with neighboring countries
(2) Insist on the right to install rulers of their choice in tributary states
(3) Conquer tributary states when their rulers decide that they are independent
(4) Create new province names and use the military garrison as the basis of large-scale Chinese settlement

In antiquity, territorial expansion wasn't unique to China, of course. China's claim to huge swathes of the Pacific Ocean bigger than China's land area appears to indicate that the old China, which used to view the world as composed of current and future provinces) is reasserting itself.

Anonymous said...

"Russia killed 100K Americans by proxy during the Korean and Vietnam Wars, while threatening us with nukes during the Cold War. If dual loyalty tests become de rigeur, it is Russians who should be raked over the coals. It is my hope that we eventually repay them in full."

None of it would have happened if Roosevelt and Truman had not asked Stalin to enter the Asian sphere at the close of WWII. Americans offered Asia on a silver platter to Soviet influence.
I mean it was one thing for the USSR to take over much of Eastern Europe. USSR had been at live-or-die war with Germany, and Russians lost great numbers of men to drive out the Germans and 'liberate' the nations in the region.

But Russia had no reason to fight in Asia. So, why allow commie Russians to take over huge parts of northern Asia? The obvious reason was to have more Russians than Americans die in fighting the Japanese--as if Russians didn't lose enough men in Europe--, but was anyone in the US thinking of the long term of what would happen if Soviet came to dominate that region?

And when it comes to deaths, Americans got off rather well in Korea and Vietnam. The other side lost something like 5 million. 3 million in Korea, 2 million in Vietnam.

Anonymous said...

The steps in the Chinese foreign policy cycle, during China's periods of overwhelming power, went like this:

(1) Establish friendly tributary relations with neighboring countries
(2) Insist on the right to install rulers of their choice in tributary states
(3) Conquer tributary states when their rulers decide that they are independent
(4) Create new province names and use the military garrison as the basis of large-scale Chinese settlement


That didn't happen in Korea, Japan, and Okinawa, which had tributary relations with China.

It didn't happen in SE Asia either. The Chinese were often invited in by SE Asian leaders who wanted to establish agricultural plantations.

The only place you might say it happened was within China itself, among essentially Chinese groups.

Anonymous said...

Russia lost 26+ million killed fighting the Nazis on our behalf.

They did not fight the Nazis on our behalf. They fought them because the Nazis would have killed them all had they not resisted. We lost 400K dead during WWII because the Russians gave the Nazis the green light to invade Western Europe via the Molotov Ribbentrop Pact. Without the German conquest of Western Europe, there would have been no Pearl Harbor.

One of these days, the Russians will get their just desserts. It would be amusing if their yellow neighbors in the Far East end up stomping them into the dirt. Too bad we'd have to get involved to prevent China from tripling its land area.

Anonymous said...

That was the Soviet Union, not Russian nationalists.

The Soviets were Russian nationalists. This is why Putin called the collapse of the Soviet Union the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the last century. It's also why the Soviets made sure the Russian empire stayed together under Russian rule after they killed the Czar and his entire family. Doesn't Lenin's tomb still have pride of place in Moscow's Red Square?

Anonymous said...

That didn't happen in Korea, Japan, and Okinawa, which had tributary relations with China.

It didn't happen in SE Asia either. The Chinese were often invited in by SE Asian leaders who wanted to establish agricultural plantations.

The only place you might say it happened was within China itself, among essentially Chinese groups.


Because the Chinese couldn't hold these lands. The Tang dynasty invaded Korea and took from it the lands that are now northeastern China. The Yuan dynasty overran Korea. China overran and ruled Vietnam for close to 1000 years before the Vietnamese revolted successfully to throw off the Chinese yoke. A rematch during the Ming dynasty 4 centuries later resulted in a Vietnamese victory via a Tet Offensive. The Yuan dynasty also attempted two failed invasions of Japan. It attempted to invade Java (now part of Indonesia) and failed.

As recently as two centuries ago, the Chinese map was half a big as it is today. The fact that the known world isn't currently composed of Chinese provinces is not evidence of China's peaceful intentions. As with many empires throughout history, China's reach has traditionally exceeded its grasp.

John Botched Society said...

British involvement in WWII makes no sense without hypothesizing communist conspiracy. What did they have to gain? They certainly had a helluva lot to lose and they lost virtually all of it in the 20 years after their "victory".

America at least had some things to gain, but again, could have done significantly better if the people making decision were out to benefit America instead of being out to crush Stalin's enemies.

Anonymous said...

It didn't happen in SE Asia either. The Chinese were often invited in by SE Asian leaders who wanted to establish agricultural plantations.

Ethnic Chinese in South East Asia were imported as indentured laborers by various European (Spanish, Dutch, Portuguese, British, French) governors of those colonial possessions. In the pre-colonial era, some were traders who settled there and were tolerated by local rulers as long as they stayed out of local power struggles.

Duke of Qin said...

Steve, as much as I appreciate your rare forays into geopolitics, in this instance you are wrong.

The reigning Western liberal consensus on China, as you have amply demonstrated vis-à-vis its own domestic weltanschauung, is a nonsensical inversion of reality. I will demonstrate as to why it is here.

Luttwak makes three fundamentally flawed assumptions that undermine his entire thesis. One, that China is pursuing geopolitical “aggression”, and that aggression is somehow self-defeating, and finally that China’s potential enemies can successfully bandwagon against her.

Luttwak is neither a historian nor sinologist and his amateurish grasp of Chinese history and contemporary Chinese society shows. One cannot describe the contemporary political culture of America today in terms of the Missouri compromise or the conflict between Slave holding Virginia agriculturalists and Yankee industrialists. Or argue that the modern European peace is a mere ruse based on the previous centuries long historical enmity of Protestants and Catholics. The Netherlands must constantly be on guard against Spanish domination! As ludicrous as those scenarios sound, every idiot under the sun is willing to apply the same type of illogic when drawing comparisons between historic imperial China to a contemporary China ruled by an ahistorical vanguard Marxist-Leninist party.

The first error that Luttwak is making assumes Chinese aggression because China has apparently been “mean” to her neighbors. What does being “mean” constitute? Apparently re-iterating long-standing claims to maritime resources that were previously made before but unenforceable that have long been similarly contested by others is the new Sudetenland. Creating an air defense-identification zone in the same vein as the US and Japan is now Poland. As others have mentioned, the American elites have complete domination in shaping the information sphere and what counts as acceptable discourse in the prestige press. The whole air-defense identification zone issue has seen wholesale lies republished and go unchallenged from the Western media. Nothing short of suicide will convince elite Western opinion of otherwise. Steve you of all people should know that the truth lies in the numbers and that when innumerate journalists ignore them in lieu of ever more adjectives, something stinks. Chinese military spending is not particularly high and the growth is less than it seems. Officially Chinese spending is only about 1.5% of GDP which is less than most major powers today barring Japan and even the higher end estimates (again excepting the Pentagons fever dreams) only end up placing spending at around 2%. This is basically the floor that NATO recommends on defense spending which only the UK and France are presently even bothering to meet. Chinese defense spending increases which on paper seem high are just nominal figures which do not factor in inflation. A 15% year on year growth in defense spending is only 9% if you figure in a 6% inflation rate and in reality; Chinese defense spending increases has been tracking real GDP growth.

TO BE CONTINUED.

Duke of Qin said...

The second error is his counter-factual assumption that aggression is counter-productive for a would be hegemon. It is absolutely not. No nation has ever risen to the top of the pile by playing nicely and following the instructions of their rivals and enemies. Not the US, not the Soviets, not the UK, not the Germans, not the French, not the Romans, not the Macedonians, nor the Chinese dynasties of old, not anyone. Aggression and the willingness to push existing boundaries is the essential ingredient for anyone who wants to challenge an obsolete status quo which no longer mirrors the present balance of power. Anyone who insists otherwise is being a) an idiot or b) a propagandist for the existing order (refer to the previous paragraph about the propagation of the elite Western worldview). This point shouldn’t even really be debatable were it not for the ability of the West’s liberal elites to turn black into white and down up. Only semantically of course as reality has the nasty habit of not so easily being overturned.

The final error that Luttwak makes is drawing an incorrect analogy between China and Wilhemine Germany and again ignoring the math. German economic and industrial strength, while substantial and greater than that of any of her individual rivals was not excessively greater than that of the UK. France and the UK together combined had a larger economy and larger population than Germany as of 1914. At most Germany could be described as the primus inter pares in Europe then as she is today. China, as of 2013 has a population that is almost as large and an economy larger than (depending on what the exchange rates are in 2 weeks) all of her immediate would be rivals combined. Divided; China’s enemies are outmatched. United; they are still outmatched and the imbalance of risk (those on the potential receiving end of a land invasion) will force defections in any would be counter-balancing alliance. The only peer competitor of China in the long term is the United States (and vice versa) and it is the very same United States that will be the crux of any security arrangements in the Western Pacific. Many Americans I’ve come to realize truly do not realize how absolutely dominating of a strategic position the US has and how steep the fall it is from number one. Barring China, America’s economy is three times greater than that of the next immediate country Japan and larger than that of Japan’s, the UK, France, Germany, and Russia combined.

RS said...

> And just as an FYI, shale oil and gas isn't some limitless bonanza. A pleasant surprise, but no more than a blip in the big picture. At least in the US. Ten years from now pretty much all the economically recoverable shale resource is going to have been exploited in North America.

That's correct on oil, mistaken on gas. The amount of shale gas in the US is immense. The question is how much of it is recoverable at what price. Indications are mixed. Its somewhat hard to get a clear view because of Wall Street's seemingly using the whole thing as a bubble object.

Unless some geologist shows up to say otherwise, I'm going to assume there's some substantial variance in the economic value of various drilling sites, and the good sites get drilled first. Well, the sites being drilled right now are already kinda marginal for the recent price range of the commodity.


> Of much more interest is exactly how much is recoverable worldwide

I'd like to know
We'll see

Anonymous said...

That didn't happen in Korea, Japan, and Okinawa, which had tributary relations with China.

It's generally acknowledged by Chinese knowledgeable about the country's history that if Japan and the European powers hadn't barged in, Sikkim, Nepal, Bhutan, Mongolia, Korea, Vietnam, Burma, Laos, Siberia and perhaps Cambodia would be Chinese provinces or sub-provincial regions today. China wasn't unique in having an expansive (and ever-expanding) vision of its rightful territory back then. It is today. Back during WWII, the British were quite leery of having Chiang's armies enter Burma to conduct joint operations with British forces to fight the Japanese, because the fear was that the Chinese wouldn't leave once the Japanese were defeated.

Anonymous said...

Because the Chinese couldn't hold these lands. The Tang dynasty invaded Korea and took from it the lands that are now northeastern China. The Yuan dynasty overran Korea. China overran and ruled Vietnam for close to 1000 years before the Vietnamese revolted successfully to throw off the Chinese yoke. A rematch during the Ming dynasty 4 centuries later resulted in a Vietnamese victory via a Tet Offensive. The Yuan dynasty also attempted two failed invasions of Japan. It attempted to invade Java (now part of Indonesia) and failed.

As recently as two centuries ago, the Chinese map was half a big as it is today. The fact that the known world isn't currently composed of Chinese provinces is not evidence of China's peaceful intentions. As with many empires throughout history, China's reach has traditionally exceeded its grasp.


Those lands weren't part of Korea. They were Khitan, Manchurian, and others' lands.

The Yuan Dynasty was Mongol. And it did not "overrun" Korea. Korea was a vassal.

Two centuries ago, China was ruled by the Qing Dynasty, which was Manchurian. And two centuries ago, the Qing China map was not "half as big as it is today." It was larger than. Qing China reached its largest extent in the 18th century.

Anonymous said...

The Duke of Qin is an interesting character. His argument is exactly the one China's First Emperor (the grandson of the last Duke of Qin) might have made. First he says China is a peaceful country. Then he suggest China is entitled to take whatever it wants, more or less restating Thucydides's aphorism: Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.

5371 said...

Duke of Qin is right about Germany as well. Contrary to what liberal historians have written for over a century, Germany did not have a comfortable position which she wantonly spoiled by her own aggressiveness, tactlessness or shortsightedness. Her position was objectively hugely difficult, and she failed in spite of determined and thoughtful attempts to succeed.

Anonymous said...

Ethnic Chinese in South East Asia were imported as indentured laborers by various European (Spanish, Dutch, Portuguese, British, French) governors of those colonial possessions. In the pre-colonial era, some were traders who settled there and were tolerated by local rulers as long as they stayed out of local power struggles.

The local rulers also invited them to establish agricultural plantations. See the Kangchu system:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangchu_system

Anonymous said...

The whole "mountain of butter" strategy doesn't really work as a practical matter. If you neglect your military capacity, just having a lot of money from selling widgets doesn't mean you'll be able to build up a military industrial complex and effectively train personnel in a flash and suddenly have a superior military force. It takes years of development.

It also doesn't make sense strategically unless your goal is to mount a risky offensive sneak attack in the future.

Jerry said...


me: China certainly does not have time. It is the fastest-aging country on earth.

reply: China has about a billion people in an area no bigger than the east coast USA. They can afford to lose a lot of that population. They'd be better off losing a lot of that population.

me again: not only is China's population declining, its demographics are perhaps as dysgenic as in the West. Peasants and ethnic minorities (many of them Muslims) get to have two children; urban elites on the East Coast (of China) are under the same kinds of presures in regards to housing, career expectations, and mating challenges, and their fertility is the lowest in the world, below 1.0.

I don't think anyone can say that China is as expansionist as the old Soviet Union, and the reason for this is that China does not have an expansionist ideology. Quite simply, unlike the West (Marxism and Communism being Western ideological viruses), China is not a universalist country. Perhaps this makes it more likely that they will start a limited war, with limited objectives: grabbing resources, protecting their flanks, rallying their own population in an economic crisis. But China's threat is also an advantage for the West--it is a stimulating challenge and a reminder for the West not to fall into solipsistic self-satisfaction. If the global warming nonsense peters out, it will be due to China, i.e., carbon leakage. As China lands on the moon, it reminds us to get to Mars first. And so on...

"I mean it was one thing for the USSR to take over much of Eastern Europe. USSR had been at live-or-die war with Germany, and Russians lost great numbers of men to drive out the Germans and 'liberate' the nations in the region."

This kind of world politics moral blindness is what sometimes dismays me about people like Buchanan. Yes, it was one thing for the Soviets to agree to free elections in Yalta, and then to renege on this. It was one thing for Poland and the others to bleed themselves out fighting Hitler on the side of the West, only to be taken over by the Soviets after the war. It was one thing for Germany to be rewarded after the war with freedom and self-determination, while Poland and the rest of its neighbors were brutally repressed and their long term prospects ruined.

Anonymous said...

"Wrong. China has reached the apex of its rise, and its leaders know it. The history of China is a cycle of unifications and disintegrations. The country is on the verge of another disintegration phase, as economic growth stalls and problems like an aging population, pollution and ethnic turmoil become unsustainable."

Gimme a break. What will happen is economic growth will slow down and may even be reversed for some time, but China has much room to grow. Thus far, China focused on manpower. Next phase is brain power, and China has lots of it. The challenge is will China produce a system of laws that will foster free flow and development of brain power? It may take time, but I think probably--even though I don't see China overtaking US in the next 50 yrs.

Also, the old historical cycles have been broken. Modernity buried that cycle with ever changing new technology.

It's been said that China declined because it closed itself to the world for too long, but this is false except in relatively recent history.
For most of history, there wasn't much to gain for a high civilization to look outside its borders. I mean, was there really much that China had to gain from the outside world(even from the west) before the rise of Western modernity? No. What the Persians, Hindus, Arabs, Romans, Byzantines, Ottomans, and other Asians had(who were usually behind China), China had or even had something even better. Also, as technological change happened at snail's path all over the world, no nation was going to grow so powerful to threaten China. If it had better technology than China, the technology might eventually make its way to China, and Chinese might find some use for it. There was no sense of urgency since technological progress around the world wasn't fast enough for any nation to gain dominance all over the world. Also, there was no guarantee that traveling around the world would lead to greater power. Spain and Portugal declined despite their conquest of the Americas.

So, Chinese tended to see history as cyclical, with one dynasty rising and then falling, to be replaced by something else. Each dynasty/empire would reach its peak and then fall. Chinese saw themselves this way and all other civilizations that way, and the Chinese were right when it came to 90% of human history; prior to rise of western modernity, China really didn't have much to gain from the rest of the world. (Indeed, even Europeans didn't gain much from the rest of the world in terms of science, ideas, and technology. The New World, Australia, and parts of Asia and Africa were sources of raw material, not for any advanced ideas about science and mathematics--as the natives, even relatively advanced ones, had little to teach the West. Europeans and whites took gold, rubber, iron, and oil from the non-west, but all the ideas arose in the west itself.)

Anonymous said...

The Europeans violated the iron rule of history by continuing to advance on and on, faster and faster. Western change grew at an exponential rate. If Chinese were intimidated by Western technology in 1850, they hoped that it couldn't get any more fearsome. But within a few decades, westerners had even faster ships, bigger guns, and more awesome weapons. The west kept rising and rising and rising without reaching a point where its cycle of decline would begin. The West had broken through the seemingly invincible barrier of historical orbit that had held all civilizations within the gravitational pull of dynastic rises and falls. It kept on rising and rising and rising, and that's when China finally decided to wake up. And China has also broken through the same cyclical orbit of history, and they are looking to the future than passively waiting for the historical wheel to go around and around.

PS. Ironically, if the West falls, it will be due to the combination of too much decadence and too much morality. Traditionally, great empires fell because its power and wealth led to dissipation and decadence. There is some of that in the West, but the bigger danger may be Western moralism against 'racism' and other perceived evils; such moralism leads to support of open borders and 'diversity' which may make the West overwhelmed by Africans and other colored folks who, in huge numbers at least, are not fit for western civilization.

Maybe Roman example was similar. There was a combination of stinking decadence and suicidal moralism(Christianity). Too much power and wealth made the Romans slack and corrupt, and then the sudden rush of Christian moralism made the Romans too passive and inert to fight. Decadence and moralisms together is worse than drinking and driving.

Anonymous said...

"The Soviets were Russian nationalists. This is why Putin called the collapse of the Soviet Union the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the last century."

Russian Soviets were Russian nationalists. But non-Russian Soviets had different ideas. Ask eduard shevardnadze.
During the Soviet period, everyone in the USSR were Soviets. But ethnic differences and tensions always lingered.

Anonymous said...

"The second error is his counter-factual assumption that aggression is counter-productive for a would be hegemon. It is absolutely not. No nation has ever risen to the top of the pile by playing nicely and following the instructions of their rivals and enemies. Not the US, not the Soviets, not the UK, not the Germans, not the French, not the Romans, not the Macedonians, nor the Chinese dynasties of old, not anyone."

Yeah, things turned out really well for Napoleon in the 19th century and really well for Germany and Japan in the 20th century. Aggression is only good if you can win.

If you can't, you end up like Hussein with Kuwait and the Argentinian junta with the Falklands.

Anonymous said...

"One cannot describe the contemporary political culture of America today in terms of the Missouri compromise or the conflict between Slave holding Virginia agriculturalists and Yankee industrialists."

True enough, but history is a game of perceptions and regurgitation. After all, Jews still see American politics today in terms of Lincoln vs the evil 'racist' South. Think of movies like LINCOLN and the much lauded 12 YRS A SLAVE, a movie that moved Chait enough to tell us that we should't be uppity with Obama since it would be slavery all over again.

We still have controversies over 'redskins' because of how 19th century is revived and remembered.

And Chinese themselves continue to see their status in the 21st century in relation to what happened in the 19th century. Though so much has changed, China keeps bringing up the opium war, as if China is still the victim nation. WE would like to forget it, but China dredge it up again and again.

History is what you make it out to be. Entire histories can be totally forgotten; or they can live on forever and ever thanks to the media.
To Jews, Palestinian kids throwing rocks at Israeli tanks are the 'new Nazis'.
For multi-millionaire black football players in the NFL who hump tons of white girls left and right, they are still working on the 'plantation'; they still see themselves as 'slaves' of the white man.

And after even after after 150 yrs after the Civil War, we still speak of red state and blue state, north and south, of neo-abolitionists and neo-confederates.

And China seems to think that the rape of Nanking is happening over and over every year. I mean they never let it go--but they seem to have amnesia about all the people killed by Mao.

Anonymous said...

Progress seems to be the product of right methods AND right ingredients.

A society can have the right ingredients but the wrong methods. China had lots of basic technology that could have been used to bring about great progress. But Chinese had the wrong methods, and so the full potential of all those technologies were not realized.

A society can have the right methods but not all the right ingredients. It may have a sound economic system, rule of law, and scientific method, but it may not have the necessary brains or access to crucial ideas that originated in another society. Thus, every society needs to pay attention to what's happening in other societies.

Of course, a society can have the wrong ingredients AND the wrong methods. Much of Africa still wallows in witchcraft and other such nonsense and don't have much in the rule of law. And it doesn't have the best talent in the intellectual department.

In the past, it seems that the West focused on what Westerners did for themselves IN Europe(and America). While Westerners, in exploring the world, took some ideas from other civilizations, the real change happened IN the West because of the combination of right methods and right ingredients. Progress was an internal affair.
Ingredients were the talent pool within Europe itself, with some nations--France, UK, and Germany--having more than others.
While progress depends on exchange of ideas and talents, it's not just any ideas and talents but the very best ideas and talents. Thus, the best in UK were mindful of what the best in France were doing who were mindful of what the best in Germany were doing who were mindful of what the best in other parts of Europe were doing, and etc. They were focused on the exchange of quality ideas and inflow of the best talents and ideas(most of which came from other parts of Europe if not from within the nation itself).

But with all this 'diversity' and 'multi-culti' craze--though we don't hear the term 'multi-culti' bandied about so much in the media(maybe too many Muslims in Europe ruined it)--, there's been far more emphasis on how western progress came about because it LEARNED, BORROWED, AND STOLE from other peoples. So, there's the myth of Greeks stealing from Africans. So, we are told that Europeans got all the basic ideas from Arabs, Hindus, and Chinese. We are told that all the great American talents are from the outside; don't try to grow our own scientists; just bring more by immigration cuz this is a nation of immigrants.

According to the narrative, Europeans achieved more than the Chinese because the West took from the East but the East didn't take from the West. But this narrative isn't really true. The east did absorb ideas and methods from the West, but it did much less with them there whereas the West did much more with the ideas from the East because the West developed the right methods(to use within the West that was demographically closed off to the rest of the world). So, mere openness would not have solved China's problem of lack of progress because China failed to develop the right methods of working with those ideas. It's like tons of books stacked inside a house isn't gonna do much for the owner unless he learns how to analyze and interpret them intelligently. There are plenty of people who read a lot of books without ever learning anything. They know how to read but not how to process information.

Anonymous said...

Indeed, for a long long time, the Near East was open to more goods and ideas than the West. Situated among Asia, India, Europe, and Africa, it was the hubbub of ideas and products from all over the world. If 'diversity' and 'multiculturalism' produce the wonders of progress, the near east would have progressed more than Europe. And Russia, situated between the East and West, took ideas from both. So, it too should have progressed more than Western Europe. Same can be said for Turkey. Russia was Christian, Turkey was Muslim, but they both lagged behind Western Europe.

Some might say Western Europeans had access to the New World, but the Spanish and Portuguese hardly learned any science and technology from the natives, most of whom were killed by disease at any rate. The New World was really valuable for its raw materials. Even if there has been no humans in the New World, it would have been valuable for tomatoes, potatoes, and etc. Even so, Spanish and Portuguese eventually fell behind many European nations that had no empires and holdings overseas: Switzerland, Sweden, etc. Netherlands lost in the empire game, but continued to do well and made more progress than Spain and Portugal that held their empires in the New World for a long spell. Why did Sweden do better than Spain even though it had no empire and was racially very homogeneous? Because Swedes developed a way to work among themselves very well with the right ideas and methods--a lesson they've forgotten in recent yrs with all this multi-culti craze, indeed as if Sweden NEEDS the massive inflow of other peoples to do well when it's been doing just fine on its own.

Most of the world was valuable to the West only as source of raw materials. Very few ideas in modern science, math, and medicine that developed in the West owed to anything from Africa, Asia, Arabia, New World, and etc.
And the West was very picky in their selection of quality people and ideas in the competition to stay ahead of the game. French scientists weren't interested in German masses, and German scientists weren't interested in British masses. The best were paying attention to what the best were doing in other nations. And American immigration got picky in the 1920s, and it tried to take in the BEST of other nations instead of taking in just about everyone. So, if a nation had fine scientists and businessmen, US take them in. But why keep taking in unwashed hordes of dummies when the cities had already filled up?

This all seems pretty obvious, but a new kind of narrative has taken over that would have us believe that the West cannot have new scientists and innovation unless we open our borders to hordes of diverse dummies from all over the world.
Would the West in the 18th and 19th century really have produced more great scientists and innovators by opening its borders(in America and Europe)to hordes of unwashed Africans, Mexicans, Arabs, and Hindus? Of course not. Most of the geniuses were homegrown, and they selectively learned from and competed with their best counterparts in other European nations. Today, there's this crazy idea that everything good in the West was the result of 'diversity' and openness to OTHER cultures. So, we are to believe that Europe will have lots of great future scientists if it brings in lots of Pakistanis and Africans--mostly low IQ ones--, and US will remain #1 if we bring in tons of more Mexican lettuce pickers and Somali autistics.

Anonymous said...

In fact, most of Western progress happened IN the West and were done by Westerners themselves. But we have new motto: Ask not what we can do for ourselves but what others can do for us.
Though West has the best talent pool, we are supposed to believe that we are falling behind. And to halt our falling behind, we needs lots more Mexicans, Arabs, Africans, and Chinese/Indians(who didn't do so well on exams back home and so wanna try their luck in America).

Never mind that American test scores tend to fall behind because of low black and brown results. If we bring more blacks and browns, wouldn't we fall behind even more since more colored folks will mean lower average test scores?

But some kind of cognitive dissonance preaches that the problem is the solution. How do we deal with the problem of low black and brown scores? Bring more blacks and browns--with even lower IQ scores--and teach them to be Einsteins who will not only raise overall test scores but build the next Silicon Valley.

Anonymous said...

I am including this link as a desperate attempt to get someone interested in the point Sailer made at the end of the post, the potential importance of minor bits of overseas territories.

AKAHorace

http://www.connexionfrance.com/France-seafloor-continental-shelf-overseas-territories-minerals-oil-gas-15118-view-article.html

Steve Sailer said...

That was my point -- national property rights have been worked out very carefully for most of the world's land surface. Invasions of conquest across land borders, like Saddam in 1990, are unpopular these days. Saddam claimed that Iraq really owned Kuwait, but that claim was not popular because there is a strong international consensus on most land boundaries. He also claimed that the Kuwaitis were drinking his milkshake with slant oil drilling, which probably would have gotten a better hearing if he wasn't such a jerk

However, there exist some micro-islands and the like whose ownership is ambiguous, which are potentially dangerous because two or more countries have reasonable claims to the surrounding seabed, which might now be valuable now that drilling technology has advanced.

Anonymous said...

Is that the true smart elite Luttwak strategy on the middle and lower classes played out every day before our eyes?

1)Be non judgemental to an insane degree and 2)focus on economic growth above all. 3)Then with future hyper tracking and bio genetic technologies they quickly ramped up the iron fist and pound before anyone has a chance to react.

Anonymous said...

Steve Sailer said...

The Chinese Missile Corps can't look up the GPS coordinates of Saipan? I'm sure the Saipanese appreciate the Pentagon's interest in painting a big bullseye on their little island.


Saipan is US territory. Has been since 1944, and has had US military presence since then: Enola Gay took off from Saipan.

I spent some time on Saipan when I was serving in the US Navy.

As for "the locals" not wanting more USAF presence, that's a mixed bag. There are some locals who have been making big bucks importing Chinese sla..er, sorry, contract workers, and they are very interested in keeping things cool with China. Other locals make more money out of sailors, soldiers, airmen and marines, and have a different opinion. Yet other locals are US citizens and very, very, very proud of that, and like having US military presence nearby.

You may want to take a closer look at Jack Abramoff's dealings with some of the locals in Saipan, Steve.


-Anonymouse Former Sailor

my gumby is yours said...

"It's generally acknowledged by Chinese knowledgeable about the country's history that if Japan and the European powers hadn't barged in, Sikkim, Nepal, Bhutan, Mongolia, Korea, Vietnam, Burma, Laos, Siberia and perhaps Cambodia would be Chinese provinces or sub-provincial regions today."

Lol. China repeatedly got humiliated by Vietnam over 1000 yrs.
China had a cordial relations with Korea.
Chinese couldn't even defend themselves against the Manchus. And when Manchus ruled over China, they had their hands full and had little time for more conquest.

Russians took Siberia because they had a more expansive definition of Russianness. And Russians more freely mingled with non-Russians. Russians were less cultured and were happy to drink and dance on tables with anyone.
Chinese had a more refined and restrictive sense of what was Chinese, and Chinese-ness was seen as the very opposite of barbarism. So, Chinese generally preferred to erect walls against barbarians than drink, dance, and wrestle with them. This is why Mongols and not the Chinese once conquered so much. Mongols were willing to eat, drink, wrestle, and dance with anyone--as well as conquering, raping, and plundering them. Barbarians tend to be more 'inclusive'--as well as more head-bashing.

And this is why Alexander the great conquered so much. After he conquered 'enough' territory, Greeks wanted to call it quits and go back home to be with fellow civilized Greeks. Most Greeks despised barbarians and didn't want to have to do with them. But Alexander the Macedonian(mixture of barbarianity and Greek influence) felt an affinity with barbarians of other lands. He fought them but also made love to them, took them as wives, worshiped some of their gods, etc.
Though officially the leader of the Greeks, a part of him never felt fully Greek, and he was sensitive about Greek cultural snobbery(including against Macedonians).

Romans also came to conquer so much because they were not only filled with civilizational pride but with an expansive barbarian soul. After all, they began as barbarian challengers to the culturally much more advanced Greeks.

Chinese, like the snobby Greeks, felt very uncomfortable with barbarians. They erected walls.

The Brits were really a special case. So snobby and exclusive yet so expansive and adventurous. Maybe the Brits came up with the proper formula of solving the contradiction via the development of the class system at home. The class system allowed for both a freer Britain and a rigidly hierarchical one. More liberty for all but also more invisible barriers that people were not supposed to cross. Classes could co-exist but also remain separate. Brits were like all over the world. Ruling over and dealing with everyone but maintaining a clearly understood separateness between themselves and the natives.

Ryan said...

Don't ignore the possibility that China understands the game exactly as Luttwak describes and they've simply decided now is the right time to convert the mountain of butter into regional dominance. Concluding they've blundered when we lack the information needed to assess China's assessment of themselves seems like simple arrogance on our part.

Regardless, they're converting the butter to guns, no question about that. So now is the time to construct an alliance and crush their economy. But how do we do that exactly? Anyone have a good plan? Perhaps that's what underlies China's decision making here.