By Brian Cloughley
November 17, 2021:
Informationclearinghouse.info
-- "
Strategic Culture Foundation"
- At the recent semi-successful United
Nations COP26 conference on climate change there was
an unexpected revelation that the U.S. and China had
engaged in some thirty virtual meetings on the
subject over the past year. Their decision to
“jointly strengthen climate action” was very welcome
from the environment point of view, and even more
welcome because it demonstrated that Washington and
Beijing could actually get along in one aspect of
international relations. It also raised the question
as to whether they could ever sit down together and
discuss the equally pressing problem of looming
conflict.
When U.S. climate envoy John Kerry
announced the agreement he acknowledged that
although “the United States and China have no
shortage of differences” it seemed that “on climate,
cooperation is the only way to get this job done.”
In this, however, he seemed to be taking a different
track to President Joe Biden, who played into the
ever-welcoming hands of Washington hawks on November
2 when he
castigated Presidents Xi and Putin for
non-appearance at the COP gathering. This, he
declared, was a “big mistake” and contrasted with
the fact that “we showed up” but “they didn’t show
up… It is a gigantic issue and they just walked
away. How do you do that and claim to have any
leadership mantle?”
It is barely credible that the President of the
United States would state that the Presidents of the
world’s other most important countries are not
effective leaders. The BBC’s
record of his diatribe is disturbing, as it
demonstrates a desire for confrontation rather than
a genuine preparedness to calm things down. He said
that “the fact that China is trying to assert,
understandably, a new role in the world as a world
leader — not showing up, come on.” He continued by
declaring that Russia’s wilderness was burning while
President Putin “stays mum” about the problem. He
did not know, or deliberately ignored the fact that,
as the BBC
reported, “before Mr Biden’s speech Mr Putin
virtually addressed a meeting on forest management
at the COP26 summit on Tuesday, saying that Russia
takes the ‘strongest and most vigorous measures to
conserve’ woodlands.”
There was little surprise that as COP26 was
drawing to a close, President Xi
warned against a return to “Cold War-era”
divisions when it was made known that he and
President Biden would meet on November 15. He said
plainly that “attempts to draw ideological lines or
form small circles on geopolitical grounds are bound
to fail,” and China’s Ambassador to the United
States, Qin Gang,
expanded on the subject at a function in
Washington of the National Committee on U.S.-China
Relations, saying that China “always bears in mind
the fundamental interests of the people of both
countries and the whole world, and handles
China-U.S. relations from a strategic and long-term
perspective”.
Most people are aware that China has a long-term
view on its place in the world, and even President
Biden, in his message to the gathering,
declared that “from tackling the Covid-19
pandemic to addressing the existential threat of
climate crisis, the relationship between the U.S.
and China has global significance. Solving these
challenges and seizing these opportunities will
require the broader international community to come
together as we each do our part to build a safe,
peaceful and resilient future.” He did not, however,
place any emphasis on bilateral negotiations, which
was left to President Xi, who wrote that “China-U.S.
relations are at a critical historical juncture.
Both countries will gain from cooperation and lose
from confrontation. Cooperation is the only right
choice.”
President Xi’s desire that China should get
together with the United States specifically to plan
a joint way ahead for a peaceful future has not been
echoed in Washington where, as
reported by the Straits Times, “the
White House deputy press secretary Karine
Jean-Pierre stated that Washington and Beijing had
‘an agreement in principle’ to have a virtual summit
before the end of the year.” Her explanation was
that “this is part of our ongoing efforts to
responsibly manage the competition between our
countries,” while stressing that it was “not about
seeking specific deliverables.” In other words,
don’t let anybody get their hopes up that Mr Biden
would pursue collaboration that will lead to
improved bilateral relations. He might not go so far
down into the insult sewer as to reiterate his
previous public declaration that Mr Xi doesn’t have
a “leadership mantle”, but it is unlikely there will
be long-term substance.
It is not surprising that Mr Biden is reluctant
to compromise, because the Pentagon and its
associates have already notified the world they
consider China to be menacing and that the United
States should “meet the pacing challenge presented
by the PRC’s increasingly capable military and its
global ambitions”.
In its November 3 Report to Congress,
the Pentagon
details “Military and Security Developments
Involving the People’s Republic of China” and
presents the Pentagon’s case for continuing to
expand the U.S. military and acquire even more
staggeringly expensive weaponry. As the New York
Times
reported, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, General Mark Milley, said that China “is
clearly challenging us regionally, and their
aspiration is to challenge us globally… they have a
China dream, and they want to challenge the
so-called liberal rules-based order.” The
Washington Post
noted the Report’s concern about China’s global
vision, in that it “already has established a
military base in Djibouti, on the Horn of Africa. To
support its goals, it wants to build more facilities
overseas and is considering more than a dozen
countries that include Cambodia, Pakistan and
Angola. Such a network could interfere with U.S.
military operations and support offensive operations
against the United States.”
The Pentagon’s warning that China’s establishment
of a military base in a foreign country constitutes
a threat is absurd to the point of risibility,
especially in the context of the U.S. military
footprint which
extends to “750 military base sites estimated in
around 80+ foreign countries and
colonies/territories.” Further, it is
calculated that the U.S. spends more on its
military than the combined defence budgets of eleven
major countries : China, India, Russia, United
Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, Germany, France, Japan, South
Korea, Italy, and Australia.
It is not surprising that William Hartung and
Mandy Smithberger
wrote in TomDispatch on November 9 that
“The arms industry’s lobbying efforts are especially
insidious. In an average year, it employs around
700 lobbyists, more than one for every member of
Congress… A 2018
investigation by the Project On Government
Oversight found that, in the prior decade, 380
high-ranking Pentagon officials and military
officers had become lobbyists, board members,
executives, or consultants for weapons contractors
within two years of leaving their government jobs.”
And of even more concern for the workings of
democracy it is sinister, in the
words of Dan Auble, that “defence companies
spend millions every year lobbying politicians and
donating to their campaigns. In the past two
decades, their extensive network of lobbyists and
donors have directed $285 million in campaign
contributions and $2.5 billion in lobbying spending
to influence defence policy.”
Good luck to Mr Biden. Let us hope that he will
sacrifice popularity for peace and that he will bear
in mind the
words of his illustrious predecessor President
Eisenhower, sixty years ago, that “In the councils
of government, we must guard against the acquisition
of unwarranted influence, whether sought or
unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The
potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power
exists and will persist.” Indeed it has risen. But
the world would benefit enormously if Joe Biden
terminated its ascent by coming to terms with China
and Russia.
Brian Cloughley, British and Australian
armies’ veteran, former deputy head of the UN
military mission in Kashmir and Australian
defense attaché in Pakistan
Registration is necessary to post comments.
We ask only that you do not use obscene or offensive
language. Please be respectful of others.