I have long suspected that there are intense backchannel discussions between the US government and the Chinese one trying to keep China from supplying Russia the weapons it desperately needs. Biden, or Blinken, calling out China would probably be counterproductive in that delicate discussion. I expect the clarifying rallying speech will come only if, hopefully not when, China does start sending weapons. According to leaks this week, the US government is very concerned that China is considering doing just that right now.
In the meantime, Chinese wolf warrior diplomats are doing more to turn the world against China than anything the US could say right now. As Napoleon said, never interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake. If we do call out China in a high profile speech, that would give Chinese diplomats more credibility in their victim-of-Western-imperialism stance, the only rhetorical point besides money that still works for them as they try to win over the Global South.
The other consideration is that to shift focus to China right now would take attention away from focusing the world's attention on Russian imperialism in Ukraine.
I think making a big China speech that articulates a broad anti-China American agenda would be a significant provocation to the CCP, and as such Biden may be wise not to rush it when questions such as the presence and degree of Chinese military aid to Russia's war in Ukraine remain to be settled. The world seems to be dividing into two hostile camps on its own, but I'm not sure a rhetorical move to hasten that helps our situation that much.
I think the risk is that in the absence of such a speech, one is instead at the mercy of events and instead a series of smaller but more aggressive moves are made.
The point on aid to Russia is a good one, but is also a potential ongoing state of uncertainty rather than a single decision point.
That's a fair point, and I'm not saying there are easy answers. Personally I am okay with being substantively anti-China while remaining rhetorically a bit more vague for now, as I think the risks of going all-in on the anti-China stance outweigh the benefits at present.
"Oh, and also the more general concern that China is now a peer competitor of the United States."
-----
LOL, No.
China is near-future doomed as a significant political entity due to demographics and its tremendous reliance on foreign inputs to keep its people alive. Those shortages in electronic components you're seeing all over the place aren't going to bounce and it's going to spread to everything else China manufactures. The damage that the US has enabled the CCP to cause to American universities, scientific institutions, and tech IP is mostly in the rear-view mirror.
Anyone who hasn't grappled with the thesis in Peter Zeihan's latest book can't comment intelligently on the geopolitics of China or its prospects for anything:
Far-future doomed. And China definitely has some chokepoints outside its borders (vast majority of its oil flow through the Malacca Strait, for instance). But even a declining non-power can be very dangerous (look at Russia), much less a real power. Nazi Germany caused a ton of damage and suffering to the world despite being far outclassed by the US in production potential. Even Imperial Japan did despite being an absolute minnow by industrial strength compared to the US of that time.
And China now has more relative industrial strength than Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan combined did in the ‘30’s.
There simply aren't enough young Chinese right now for China to have much of a far future (especially while feeding/supporting its old people), and the majority of the young people they have are male (which still matters in reality when it comes to reproduction).
It's not just oil they import from the other side of the world in massive quantities, its fertilizer and all kinds of industrial inputs. That only happens (not just in China but for every other country that has industrialized since WWII) because the US Navy has been playing ocean cop, making global transport costs negligible. That's coming to an end too and even if the US still wanted to play ocean cop it's fleet has evolved into 11-13 super carrier groups - which is great for leveling a country on the other side of the world in a hurry, but you need *hundreds* of destroyers to place a 'cop' at every intersection. The USN now has ~70. It would take several decades to reverse that trend assuming there was any motivation to do so. One could be forgiven for thinking that humanity has now evolved to the point where desperate people, organizations, and states won't engage in piracy and hijacking of slow-moving ships filled with goodies but that's just not how it works.
Nazi Germany, with the aid of state-of-the-art tech, caused a ton of damage and suffering mostly in its own back yard. China (not much of a high-tech producer) doesn't have much of a back yard for one thing and 90% of it's much-hyped navy can't sail more than 1-2 thousand miles offshore. Japan, which does have a real navy, and doesn't get along with China very well, could strangle China *remotely* simply by blockading the Malacca Strait and other choke-points between China and the Arabian Sea. No more oil, no more industrial inputs, no more industrial strength (or food).
Yes, a failing state with over a billion people could cause some trouble but the notion that China is a major threat to the US or is going to take over the world, from this point on, is ridiculous. Quite the opposite.
I'm considerably older than you, so have more memories of "existential threats". I don't see it. I don't see a Chinese ideology comparable to the ideology nominally embraced by the Soviet Union; the ideology which convinced Whitaker Chambers he was on the losing side. There seems to be limitations on the extent of the power of any state.
Maybe if Biden runs and wins he'll use his memories of the Cold War to quiet the Sinophobes. Until then he seems to be trotting after the crowd.
See my other response. Ideology is overrated anyway. Nazism didn’t win many hearts in the free West or really anywhere else in the world but Nazi Germany was still a very destructive powerful opponent. By industrial strength/production potential, China now is a far more formidable opponent than the USSR+all Communist allies or all the Axis powers combined.
I have long suspected that there are intense backchannel discussions between the US government and the Chinese one trying to keep China from supplying Russia the weapons it desperately needs. Biden, or Blinken, calling out China would probably be counterproductive in that delicate discussion. I expect the clarifying rallying speech will come only if, hopefully not when, China does start sending weapons. According to leaks this week, the US government is very concerned that China is considering doing just that right now.
In the meantime, Chinese wolf warrior diplomats are doing more to turn the world against China than anything the US could say right now. As Napoleon said, never interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake. If we do call out China in a high profile speech, that would give Chinese diplomats more credibility in their victim-of-Western-imperialism stance, the only rhetorical point besides money that still works for them as they try to win over the Global South.
The other consideration is that to shift focus to China right now would take attention away from focusing the world's attention on Russian imperialism in Ukraine.
I think making a big China speech that articulates a broad anti-China American agenda would be a significant provocation to the CCP, and as such Biden may be wise not to rush it when questions such as the presence and degree of Chinese military aid to Russia's war in Ukraine remain to be settled. The world seems to be dividing into two hostile camps on its own, but I'm not sure a rhetorical move to hasten that helps our situation that much.
I think the risk is that in the absence of such a speech, one is instead at the mercy of events and instead a series of smaller but more aggressive moves are made.
The point on aid to Russia is a good one, but is also a potential ongoing state of uncertainty rather than a single decision point.
That's a fair point, and I'm not saying there are easy answers. Personally I am okay with being substantively anti-China while remaining rhetorically a bit more vague for now, as I think the risks of going all-in on the anti-China stance outweigh the benefits at present.
"Oh, and also the more general concern that China is now a peer competitor of the United States."
-----
LOL, No.
China is near-future doomed as a significant political entity due to demographics and its tremendous reliance on foreign inputs to keep its people alive. Those shortages in electronic components you're seeing all over the place aren't going to bounce and it's going to spread to everything else China manufactures. The damage that the US has enabled the CCP to cause to American universities, scientific institutions, and tech IP is mostly in the rear-view mirror.
Anyone who hasn't grappled with the thesis in Peter Zeihan's latest book can't comment intelligently on the geopolitics of China or its prospects for anything:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ED_yPDdqG5Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNLBGbWBOoE
Far-future doomed. And China definitely has some chokepoints outside its borders (vast majority of its oil flow through the Malacca Strait, for instance). But even a declining non-power can be very dangerous (look at Russia), much less a real power. Nazi Germany caused a ton of damage and suffering to the world despite being far outclassed by the US in production potential. Even Imperial Japan did despite being an absolute minnow by industrial strength compared to the US of that time.
And China now has more relative industrial strength than Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan combined did in the ‘30’s.
There simply aren't enough young Chinese right now for China to have much of a far future (especially while feeding/supporting its old people), and the majority of the young people they have are male (which still matters in reality when it comes to reproduction).
It's not just oil they import from the other side of the world in massive quantities, its fertilizer and all kinds of industrial inputs. That only happens (not just in China but for every other country that has industrialized since WWII) because the US Navy has been playing ocean cop, making global transport costs negligible. That's coming to an end too and even if the US still wanted to play ocean cop it's fleet has evolved into 11-13 super carrier groups - which is great for leveling a country on the other side of the world in a hurry, but you need *hundreds* of destroyers to place a 'cop' at every intersection. The USN now has ~70. It would take several decades to reverse that trend assuming there was any motivation to do so. One could be forgiven for thinking that humanity has now evolved to the point where desperate people, organizations, and states won't engage in piracy and hijacking of slow-moving ships filled with goodies but that's just not how it works.
Nazi Germany, with the aid of state-of-the-art tech, caused a ton of damage and suffering mostly in its own back yard. China (not much of a high-tech producer) doesn't have much of a back yard for one thing and 90% of it's much-hyped navy can't sail more than 1-2 thousand miles offshore. Japan, which does have a real navy, and doesn't get along with China very well, could strangle China *remotely* simply by blockading the Malacca Strait and other choke-points between China and the Arabian Sea. No more oil, no more industrial inputs, no more industrial strength (or food).
Yes, a failing state with over a billion people could cause some trouble but the notion that China is a major threat to the US or is going to take over the world, from this point on, is ridiculous. Quite the opposite.
I'm considerably older than you, so have more memories of "existential threats". I don't see it. I don't see a Chinese ideology comparable to the ideology nominally embraced by the Soviet Union; the ideology which convinced Whitaker Chambers he was on the losing side. There seems to be limitations on the extent of the power of any state.
Maybe if Biden runs and wins he'll use his memories of the Cold War to quiet the Sinophobes. Until then he seems to be trotting after the crowd.
See my other response. Ideology is overrated anyway. Nazism didn’t win many hearts in the free West or really anywhere else in the world but Nazi Germany was still a very destructive powerful opponent. By industrial strength/production potential, China now is a far more formidable opponent than the USSR+all Communist allies or all the Axis powers combined.
Thanks for the clear-minded article! America needs to defend itself that's the biggest reason