Cold War II
COLD WAR II HAS BEGUN
RUSSIA AND EUROPE
Many people are questioning if another Cold War is going to occur. Some people are pointing to causes, events and activities which may inevitably lead to such a threatening situation if we pursue certain courses.
They are wrong. Cold War II began on June 12, 1999 (California time) when the Russian troops drove into Pristina, Kosovo ahead of the NATO forces. In that one secret, decisive stroke, the Russian military began the slow and inconsistent rebuilding of the Russian Empire. Everything in Russia up to that point had been a holding action or a political game of musical chairs. But the old drive to create or re-create a Greater Russia remains as the core of the Russian national character. They must 'find their place in the Sun' and we will never have peace until they do.
So the question remains not "when Cold War II will start" but how we will deal with it, what will we do? What will be the strategies and tactics we must employ to manage this evolving threat? Just as the first Cold War is over and done, so must we also realize that the policies and practices used in that war are no longer necessarily valid. We must develop new methods of dealing with the threats of the Cold War in the Twenty-First Century.
Russia is still emerging from the chaos that followed the demise of the Soviet Union. The Russians now are in a third-world status, and more importantly, realize that others see them as a third world country. With no distinct identity, no national unity, a floundering military, anomie in the national consciousness, and governmental authorities which are not respected because they deserve no respect, the Russians are a blundering, weakened, paranoid colossus, the most dangerous of states they could be in.
The Russia of today is like the Weimar Republic. It does not have to become another totalitarian regime but will do so if the Western world does not use tact, firmness, intelligence, empathy, and common sense in engaging with those who were once so powerful. [Note: The armistice period between World War I and World War II should be regarded as a Proto-Cold War, with its attendant 'lessons not-learned'.]
To develop a plan for dealing with the Russians in the new Cold War, we must understand certain basic traits of the Russian national character. It must also be remembered that, like the Weimar Germans, the Russians have no actual experience with democracy. Even during Kerensky's time there was no viable form of rule by popular mandate. The closest Russians have ever come to democratic rule was in the Gorbachev/Yeltsin years. But with chaos and revolutionary change, a survival mentality, hunger, disease, crime and a barter economy, democracy was at best an empty framework, and a shaky one at that. As we learned in our own Great Depression, the real feelings of freedom by the people can only exist if Freedom from Fear and Freedom from Want are also fully manifest.
In times of turmoil and threat, the Russians look for a strong leader. The stronger and more ruthless, the better they like him (or 'she' in one instance). In the infrequent times of stability and peace, the Russians are only manageable if they can look to a strong national leader. Even a façade of despotism is fine with them. There may be incompetence behind the image, such as Brezhnev, but the Russians mainly are looking for someone to believe in.
There has been little in the last twenty years for the Russians to show as proof that they are still a global superpower. Client states have defected or have been unsupportable, the war in Afghanistan was an exercise in military ineffectuality and the first Chechnyan war was worse, the space program and other scientific programs had to be propped up by free world charity, international athletic competition was no longer an arena to be dominated, and the Warsaw Pact dissolved with many of its former members clamoring to join NATO. Even Russia sought to have some form of association with NATO or at least have a tacit veto about the growing membership. All of these events led to greater Russian paranoia.
Going back to the earlier allusion to the Weimar Republic, we can follow the logical consequences up to the point of Hitler's first military action which had international consequences and implications. It was not the Austrian anschluss, but rather the Occupation of the Rhineland. Although unnoticed by the general population of Europe and North America, then and now, historians recognize this event as the first that led to World War II. It is also recognized that, at each step from the Rhineland to Austria to the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia, if at any time the international community or any of the major powers had objected and stood firm, Hitler would have had to back down, his momentum would have been stalled and, more importantly, he would have lost face, and then he would have lost his mandate. He would have been seen as just another blustering politician who could not deliver.
As it is now, President Vladimir Putin is in much the same position as Josef Stalin was in the 1920s after the death of Lenin, in a central position of power but not having absolutist power. Stalin still had to deal with other politicians and factions in order to maintain himself in power and then consolidate that power.
Putin by himself does not have much authority in the sense of having the power of enforcement. But in the Russia of today, he may be seen as the only alternative to chaos and anarchy. If he were not occupying the Presidency, then the non-entity who would be in that position would be seen as another Yeltsin. Not only would this be a blow to the Russian psyche but it would reverse the progress of creating a viable Russian governmental entity.
It might be noted that much of the progress attributed to Putin should have quotation marks around it or be labeled "so-called" as the actual progress is very insubstantial in measurable terms.
Crime and crooked business deals are still common if not prevalent. The military establishment on the whole is powerless and floundering, though able to mount an admirable and highly competent operation for a very specific objectives such as going into Pristina. The economy is kept afloat by legerdemain and selling the national natural resources and the taxation revenue sources for the government are a third-world con game. The borders of Russia are currently secure only because the immediately adjacent states are in even worse shape than Mother Russia. The Ukraine, Byelorussia, Moldava, and the corridor of former forced allies on Russia's western border are weak and only pose a threat to Russia by serving as examples of economic progress that is possible by adopting Western economic systems. They are generally poverty-stricken but less so than those states which did not transition to a different economic model.
In the military sense, these corridor states present a form of liability to NATO whereby affiliation with them creates a requirement for mutual defense. These states do not have a military capability with which they could fulfill their obligations either to their own people or to their new allies.
Vladimir Putin does not have the power or resources to run a cohesive, progressive government. He has a government that is like a currency in a monetary system. It is only viable and of worth as long as the users consider it to be viable and of worth. If anything undermines confidence in Putin, the government will not necessarily fall, it may simply sit there as a dead hulk. Should this occur, Russia will be pushed even faster into anarchy or despotism. If anarchy is the result, then the military will take over, take the resources it needs in order to function, and become the despotic power. In the end, this is the same result.
The important thing is to realize that the Free World is now faced with a Problem, either to bring progress and freedom to Russia or let it become anarchic/despotic. Anarchy or Despotism means that Russia will drag the rest of the world into a quagmire of much the same kind.
The current US Presidency has taken several steps which show America to be isolationist, arrogant and unilateral in its relations with others. Nothing could suit the Russian cause better. While they flounder and try to come up with policies and goals that can be achieved within their limited capabilities, the US is offering no alternative. If anything we are driving our allies into being former allies who will now accept Russian actions without condemning them. Chechnya, freedom of the press, international arms dealing and environmental issues are just the most prominent issues where Russia is moving against the best interests of the world, yet seem benign compared to what we are doing.
The Kyoto Treaty, Star Wars II, world population growth, exploitation of the environment - these are matched by Russian culpability in different issues. But in the eyes of the world, Russia cannot help itself and many do not want to offend the Russians because it might make them worse. (Neville Chamberlain is still with us.) The same cannot be said about America.
The US has a functioning, continuous government. We have the strongest economy and military ever. We have been a leader in professing the benefits of democracy and trying to force other governments to free up their political processes and their markets. We say they must pay attention to the needs of the people, both here and abroad.
Yet right now our government policies are not that of a modern progressive world leader, but rather an insular, immature bully that is living in the past. Our policies are reminiscent of the post-World War II anti-communism of the Eisenhower era, though at that time we were not as isolationist as we are now.
Since their action in Kosovo, the Russians have embarked on several transnational ventures, but are still not sure of themselves and have not thought them out very well. The Second Chechnyan War is the most prominent of these activities. It is very much like the Transcaucasian conquests of Imperial Russia or the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968. But this has been a military disaster for Russia, as they are now bogged down by a tenacious, nationalist guerilla movement. With some planning and foresight, the Russians could have used 'divide and conquer' techniques and had some allied Chechnyan proxy forces do most of their fighting for them.
This failure is counterbalanced by the Russian success of neo-panslavism, uniting with the Serbians and supporting the Macedonians, including the use of Ukrainian forces. Byelorussia and Moldava are client states, and the Ukraine is being drawn or forced back into the Russian orbit. Because of Soviet Russia's oppression and betrayal for nearly 50 years, Middle Europe, from the Baltic to the Danube will be in opposition to Russia for many years to come, but they also know that American isolationism and unsteady support means that they cannot count on our country when the pressure is on.
The age-old enemy, Turkey, has been neutralized and even shows signs of allying itself with Russia, one low-grade power conspiring with another. The nation-states along the southern border of Russia, the Transcaucasians and the "-stans" are having to overcome their antipathy to Russia or face an even worse fate at the hands of the Taliban and similar fanatics. No one else is ready to help in any way.
Russia is trying to reach an accommodation with Europe, in its foreign relations and how it is viewed domestically. Chechnya aside, the Russians are not looking for any more military adventures. They will not press too hard on the free press or the other standard measures of how much freedom there is in a country. They will be content to maintain a slow, relentless pressure, undermining any institutions that have the potential of opposing the New Russian State.
Europeans, on the other hand, do not want to become too involved in any foreign affairs outside of Western and Middle Europe. The Europeans see themselves as having many of the same potential problems and do not want to become involved. Only in foreign crises such as Kosovo or economic instability will they become concerned. This is the current form of Realpolitik. The Europeans want nothing that will disturb the stability of their present systems, and they do not want to have to spend any military or humanitarian resources on hotspots in any part of Europe.
If we recognize that the Second Cold War has already begun then we must then accept that the policies and practices of the present administration are exactly the opposite of what should be done. We should be working with our European allies as equals, going from Pax Americana to Pax Euro-Americana. We should be providing leadership by intelligence, wisdom and character, not direction, as we help every country throughout the world as each one moves towards peace, stability, and democracy. We should take responsibility for other changes we cause in the environment and global economy. We must not take unilateral action in national defense that will lead to a new arms race and militarism. Our actions and those of our European allies must be coordinated with those of Russia, wherever feasible. A paranoid, disrespected Russia is volatile and ultimately will have the resources to be the worst of enemies rather than the best of friends.
One way to get the Russians on our side would be to engage in co-operative ventures with them. We already are exploiting the natural resources of Siberia, why not more work with environmental consciousness? Why not a Marshall Plan for Chechnya, where those Chechnyans who will work with us will be those in charge during the rebuilding and in the united, pacified state that follows.
We need to convince President Putin that it is in the best interests of Russia and, therefore, himself to let democracy live. Although the Russians will not embrace full democracy in the near future, even a limited form of democracy would still leave Russia with enough freedom to keep that nation from becoming a new totalitarian power.
America must again co-operate internationally in the areas of environment and anti-missile defense. We not only have a moral obligation to honor our agreements and contracts, but there are our own self-interests of taking care of future generations, here and abroad. We must work with the Europeans and the Russians in finding mutually acceptable and practical solutions to any problems we face. Inclusiveness will mitigate, if not negate, the forces driving Russia into a resurrection of the Cold War.
CHINA
No matter what we do, we will not have China as a true ally. The Chinese have always thought of their country as the "Middle Kingdom". They have thought this in the past, they think so now, they will think so as long as their civilization endures. We must base our foreign and trade policies on this precept. Whatever the Chinese do, it is Sino-centric, without regard to whatever regime rules wherever their capital is. Even a reversion to warlordship in the provinces would not alter what we must do.
As it is now, the Chinese are constantly maintaining our largest trade imbalance. Yet we react to their policies, rather than enforcing the international rules of civilized behavior on them.
We say we are against genocide, totalitarian rule, and imperialism. China is guilty of all three - in Tibet; in its dictatorial central government; and in its actions towards Taiwan, India, and other border regions. We do nothing to stop them because we believe it would inhibit or stop us from exporting our goods to them, and because we do not know how to deal with such a single-minded opponent.
The history of trade with China is that it is a sinkhole. Everyone thinks they will make it big in the China market, but no one ever does. They will keep promising us access, property protection, and the world's biggest market. What we will get is more of our dollars going overseas. In the computer areas, for instance, they will let our companies believe that they can fairly enter the markets. We may sell increasing amounts of hardware and software, but when it appears that we have reached critical mass, the Chinese will create their own (unlicensed) clones, create software by reverse engineering ours, and keep their production work and money at home.
The other part of it is that we never have known how to deal with the Chinese. We probably never will know how to deal with the Chinese because they are more Realpolitik than the Europeans are. Our usual response to Realpolitik is to condemn it then try to play the same game, thus managing to both sell out our ideals and do it incompetently at the same time.
In dealing with the Chinese we must learn to not make public demands on them as they will never comply since they believe they can never show weakness or compromise. Better to make mild pronouncements indicating what we would prefer to happen. Then privately lay it on the line. We will cut off trade with China, meaning a loss of $6 Billion a month in hard American dollars that would vanish from their economy. We can back Taiwan, isolate the Chinese internationally, undermine their debt servicing, and delay their development projects. But we must stand up to them and let them know that our ideals and resolve are not to be compromised.
China is not presently a participant in the Second Cold War. China is a separate entity internationally and does not fit in with other third-world countries. They must be dealt with separately, which is not to their advantage. The Chinese have done very well because we have never understood them. We have either classified them as a Third-World country or described them as "inscrutable". Neither categorization leads to an effective, coherent policy.
There are indications that Russia and China are getting together and are signing an agreement of mutual understanding. This will be of no consequence substantively but symbolically is important and could lead to a more definitive and substantial relationship between the two. This is not to be taken lightly, but must be treated with respect and deference. It is also something that should lead to a well-thought out strategy by the Western powers whereby they would bring Russia back into the Western camp and leave China as a solitary power to be dealt with individually.
John Cormode, B.A., M.A., Political Science
© John Cormode 2001
(Amended but not updated in 2009)
RUSSIA AND EUROPE
Many people are questioning if another Cold War is going to occur. Some people are pointing to causes, events and activities which may inevitably lead to such a threatening situation if we pursue certain courses.
They are wrong. Cold War II began on June 12, 1999 (California time) when the Russian troops drove into Pristina, Kosovo ahead of the NATO forces. In that one secret, decisive stroke, the Russian military began the slow and inconsistent rebuilding of the Russian Empire. Everything in Russia up to that point had been a holding action or a political game of musical chairs. But the old drive to create or re-create a Greater Russia remains as the core of the Russian national character. They must 'find their place in the Sun' and we will never have peace until they do.
So the question remains not "when Cold War II will start" but how we will deal with it, what will we do? What will be the strategies and tactics we must employ to manage this evolving threat? Just as the first Cold War is over and done, so must we also realize that the policies and practices used in that war are no longer necessarily valid. We must develop new methods of dealing with the threats of the Cold War in the Twenty-First Century.
Russia is still emerging from the chaos that followed the demise of the Soviet Union. The Russians now are in a third-world status, and more importantly, realize that others see them as a third world country. With no distinct identity, no national unity, a floundering military, anomie in the national consciousness, and governmental authorities which are not respected because they deserve no respect, the Russians are a blundering, weakened, paranoid colossus, the most dangerous of states they could be in.
The Russia of today is like the Weimar Republic. It does not have to become another totalitarian regime but will do so if the Western world does not use tact, firmness, intelligence, empathy, and common sense in engaging with those who were once so powerful. [Note: The armistice period between World War I and World War II should be regarded as a Proto-Cold War, with its attendant 'lessons not-learned'.]
To develop a plan for dealing with the Russians in the new Cold War, we must understand certain basic traits of the Russian national character. It must also be remembered that, like the Weimar Germans, the Russians have no actual experience with democracy. Even during Kerensky's time there was no viable form of rule by popular mandate. The closest Russians have ever come to democratic rule was in the Gorbachev/Yeltsin years. But with chaos and revolutionary change, a survival mentality, hunger, disease, crime and a barter economy, democracy was at best an empty framework, and a shaky one at that. As we learned in our own Great Depression, the real feelings of freedom by the people can only exist if Freedom from Fear and Freedom from Want are also fully manifest.
In times of turmoil and threat, the Russians look for a strong leader. The stronger and more ruthless, the better they like him (or 'she' in one instance). In the infrequent times of stability and peace, the Russians are only manageable if they can look to a strong national leader. Even a façade of despotism is fine with them. There may be incompetence behind the image, such as Brezhnev, but the Russians mainly are looking for someone to believe in.
There has been little in the last twenty years for the Russians to show as proof that they are still a global superpower. Client states have defected or have been unsupportable, the war in Afghanistan was an exercise in military ineffectuality and the first Chechnyan war was worse, the space program and other scientific programs had to be propped up by free world charity, international athletic competition was no longer an arena to be dominated, and the Warsaw Pact dissolved with many of its former members clamoring to join NATO. Even Russia sought to have some form of association with NATO or at least have a tacit veto about the growing membership. All of these events led to greater Russian paranoia.
Going back to the earlier allusion to the Weimar Republic, we can follow the logical consequences up to the point of Hitler's first military action which had international consequences and implications. It was not the Austrian anschluss, but rather the Occupation of the Rhineland. Although unnoticed by the general population of Europe and North America, then and now, historians recognize this event as the first that led to World War II. It is also recognized that, at each step from the Rhineland to Austria to the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia, if at any time the international community or any of the major powers had objected and stood firm, Hitler would have had to back down, his momentum would have been stalled and, more importantly, he would have lost face, and then he would have lost his mandate. He would have been seen as just another blustering politician who could not deliver.
As it is now, President Vladimir Putin is in much the same position as Josef Stalin was in the 1920s after the death of Lenin, in a central position of power but not having absolutist power. Stalin still had to deal with other politicians and factions in order to maintain himself in power and then consolidate that power.
Putin by himself does not have much authority in the sense of having the power of enforcement. But in the Russia of today, he may be seen as the only alternative to chaos and anarchy. If he were not occupying the Presidency, then the non-entity who would be in that position would be seen as another Yeltsin. Not only would this be a blow to the Russian psyche but it would reverse the progress of creating a viable Russian governmental entity.
It might be noted that much of the progress attributed to Putin should have quotation marks around it or be labeled "so-called" as the actual progress is very insubstantial in measurable terms.
Crime and crooked business deals are still common if not prevalent. The military establishment on the whole is powerless and floundering, though able to mount an admirable and highly competent operation for a very specific objectives such as going into Pristina. The economy is kept afloat by legerdemain and selling the national natural resources and the taxation revenue sources for the government are a third-world con game. The borders of Russia are currently secure only because the immediately adjacent states are in even worse shape than Mother Russia. The Ukraine, Byelorussia, Moldava, and the corridor of former forced allies on Russia's western border are weak and only pose a threat to Russia by serving as examples of economic progress that is possible by adopting Western economic systems. They are generally poverty-stricken but less so than those states which did not transition to a different economic model.
In the military sense, these corridor states present a form of liability to NATO whereby affiliation with them creates a requirement for mutual defense. These states do not have a military capability with which they could fulfill their obligations either to their own people or to their new allies.
Vladimir Putin does not have the power or resources to run a cohesive, progressive government. He has a government that is like a currency in a monetary system. It is only viable and of worth as long as the users consider it to be viable and of worth. If anything undermines confidence in Putin, the government will not necessarily fall, it may simply sit there as a dead hulk. Should this occur, Russia will be pushed even faster into anarchy or despotism. If anarchy is the result, then the military will take over, take the resources it needs in order to function, and become the despotic power. In the end, this is the same result.
The important thing is to realize that the Free World is now faced with a Problem, either to bring progress and freedom to Russia or let it become anarchic/despotic. Anarchy or Despotism means that Russia will drag the rest of the world into a quagmire of much the same kind.
The current US Presidency has taken several steps which show America to be isolationist, arrogant and unilateral in its relations with others. Nothing could suit the Russian cause better. While they flounder and try to come up with policies and goals that can be achieved within their limited capabilities, the US is offering no alternative. If anything we are driving our allies into being former allies who will now accept Russian actions without condemning them. Chechnya, freedom of the press, international arms dealing and environmental issues are just the most prominent issues where Russia is moving against the best interests of the world, yet seem benign compared to what we are doing.
The Kyoto Treaty, Star Wars II, world population growth, exploitation of the environment - these are matched by Russian culpability in different issues. But in the eyes of the world, Russia cannot help itself and many do not want to offend the Russians because it might make them worse. (Neville Chamberlain is still with us.) The same cannot be said about America.
The US has a functioning, continuous government. We have the strongest economy and military ever. We have been a leader in professing the benefits of democracy and trying to force other governments to free up their political processes and their markets. We say they must pay attention to the needs of the people, both here and abroad.
Yet right now our government policies are not that of a modern progressive world leader, but rather an insular, immature bully that is living in the past. Our policies are reminiscent of the post-World War II anti-communism of the Eisenhower era, though at that time we were not as isolationist as we are now.
Since their action in Kosovo, the Russians have embarked on several transnational ventures, but are still not sure of themselves and have not thought them out very well. The Second Chechnyan War is the most prominent of these activities. It is very much like the Transcaucasian conquests of Imperial Russia or the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968. But this has been a military disaster for Russia, as they are now bogged down by a tenacious, nationalist guerilla movement. With some planning and foresight, the Russians could have used 'divide and conquer' techniques and had some allied Chechnyan proxy forces do most of their fighting for them.
This failure is counterbalanced by the Russian success of neo-panslavism, uniting with the Serbians and supporting the Macedonians, including the use of Ukrainian forces. Byelorussia and Moldava are client states, and the Ukraine is being drawn or forced back into the Russian orbit. Because of Soviet Russia's oppression and betrayal for nearly 50 years, Middle Europe, from the Baltic to the Danube will be in opposition to Russia for many years to come, but they also know that American isolationism and unsteady support means that they cannot count on our country when the pressure is on.
The age-old enemy, Turkey, has been neutralized and even shows signs of allying itself with Russia, one low-grade power conspiring with another. The nation-states along the southern border of Russia, the Transcaucasians and the "-stans" are having to overcome their antipathy to Russia or face an even worse fate at the hands of the Taliban and similar fanatics. No one else is ready to help in any way.
Russia is trying to reach an accommodation with Europe, in its foreign relations and how it is viewed domestically. Chechnya aside, the Russians are not looking for any more military adventures. They will not press too hard on the free press or the other standard measures of how much freedom there is in a country. They will be content to maintain a slow, relentless pressure, undermining any institutions that have the potential of opposing the New Russian State.
Europeans, on the other hand, do not want to become too involved in any foreign affairs outside of Western and Middle Europe. The Europeans see themselves as having many of the same potential problems and do not want to become involved. Only in foreign crises such as Kosovo or economic instability will they become concerned. This is the current form of Realpolitik. The Europeans want nothing that will disturb the stability of their present systems, and they do not want to have to spend any military or humanitarian resources on hotspots in any part of Europe.
If we recognize that the Second Cold War has already begun then we must then accept that the policies and practices of the present administration are exactly the opposite of what should be done. We should be working with our European allies as equals, going from Pax Americana to Pax Euro-Americana. We should be providing leadership by intelligence, wisdom and character, not direction, as we help every country throughout the world as each one moves towards peace, stability, and democracy. We should take responsibility for other changes we cause in the environment and global economy. We must not take unilateral action in national defense that will lead to a new arms race and militarism. Our actions and those of our European allies must be coordinated with those of Russia, wherever feasible. A paranoid, disrespected Russia is volatile and ultimately will have the resources to be the worst of enemies rather than the best of friends.
One way to get the Russians on our side would be to engage in co-operative ventures with them. We already are exploiting the natural resources of Siberia, why not more work with environmental consciousness? Why not a Marshall Plan for Chechnya, where those Chechnyans who will work with us will be those in charge during the rebuilding and in the united, pacified state that follows.
We need to convince President Putin that it is in the best interests of Russia and, therefore, himself to let democracy live. Although the Russians will not embrace full democracy in the near future, even a limited form of democracy would still leave Russia with enough freedom to keep that nation from becoming a new totalitarian power.
America must again co-operate internationally in the areas of environment and anti-missile defense. We not only have a moral obligation to honor our agreements and contracts, but there are our own self-interests of taking care of future generations, here and abroad. We must work with the Europeans and the Russians in finding mutually acceptable and practical solutions to any problems we face. Inclusiveness will mitigate, if not negate, the forces driving Russia into a resurrection of the Cold War.
CHINA
No matter what we do, we will not have China as a true ally. The Chinese have always thought of their country as the "Middle Kingdom". They have thought this in the past, they think so now, they will think so as long as their civilization endures. We must base our foreign and trade policies on this precept. Whatever the Chinese do, it is Sino-centric, without regard to whatever regime rules wherever their capital is. Even a reversion to warlordship in the provinces would not alter what we must do.
As it is now, the Chinese are constantly maintaining our largest trade imbalance. Yet we react to their policies, rather than enforcing the international rules of civilized behavior on them.
We say we are against genocide, totalitarian rule, and imperialism. China is guilty of all three - in Tibet; in its dictatorial central government; and in its actions towards Taiwan, India, and other border regions. We do nothing to stop them because we believe it would inhibit or stop us from exporting our goods to them, and because we do not know how to deal with such a single-minded opponent.
The history of trade with China is that it is a sinkhole. Everyone thinks they will make it big in the China market, but no one ever does. They will keep promising us access, property protection, and the world's biggest market. What we will get is more of our dollars going overseas. In the computer areas, for instance, they will let our companies believe that they can fairly enter the markets. We may sell increasing amounts of hardware and software, but when it appears that we have reached critical mass, the Chinese will create their own (unlicensed) clones, create software by reverse engineering ours, and keep their production work and money at home.
The other part of it is that we never have known how to deal with the Chinese. We probably never will know how to deal with the Chinese because they are more Realpolitik than the Europeans are. Our usual response to Realpolitik is to condemn it then try to play the same game, thus managing to both sell out our ideals and do it incompetently at the same time.
In dealing with the Chinese we must learn to not make public demands on them as they will never comply since they believe they can never show weakness or compromise. Better to make mild pronouncements indicating what we would prefer to happen. Then privately lay it on the line. We will cut off trade with China, meaning a loss of $6 Billion a month in hard American dollars that would vanish from their economy. We can back Taiwan, isolate the Chinese internationally, undermine their debt servicing, and delay their development projects. But we must stand up to them and let them know that our ideals and resolve are not to be compromised.
China is not presently a participant in the Second Cold War. China is a separate entity internationally and does not fit in with other third-world countries. They must be dealt with separately, which is not to their advantage. The Chinese have done very well because we have never understood them. We have either classified them as a Third-World country or described them as "inscrutable". Neither categorization leads to an effective, coherent policy.
There are indications that Russia and China are getting together and are signing an agreement of mutual understanding. This will be of no consequence substantively but symbolically is important and could lead to a more definitive and substantial relationship between the two. This is not to be taken lightly, but must be treated with respect and deference. It is also something that should lead to a well-thought out strategy by the Western powers whereby they would bring Russia back into the Western camp and leave China as a solitary power to be dealt with individually.
John Cormode, B.A., M.A., Political Science
© John Cormode 2001
(Amended but not updated in 2009)
Labels: American Foreign Policy, China, Cold War, Russia
posted by Jack Cormode at 2:06 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home