End Washington’s Buildup for War with China,
Pursue Peace and Economic Cooperation
By Connor Freeman
July 02, 2023:
Information Clearing House
-- As Washington is
mired in brinkmanship with Russia in Ukraine,
the last thing the US should do is decouple with
China. For years, the Pentagon has been eyeing a
future war with Beijing, yet another unnecessary
war which – in our lifetimes - could lead to
this planet’s nuclear incineration.
America’s new Cold War with China is a
bi-partisan imperial project led by the
Democrats. In 2011, former President Barack
Obama began it in earnest, dubbing it the “pivot
to Asia.” The “pivot”
entails the largest military buildup since
the Second World War, shifting hundreds of bases
as well as two-thirds of all US Air and Naval
forces to the Asia-Pacific region. Washington is
encircling China for a
future war with Beijing.
In 2020, while Americans were distracted by the
Covid-19 crisis, Donald Trump’s war cabinet
seized the opportunity to drastically expand the
US military footprint in Beijing’s near abroad
by sending more
warships and
spy planes, conducting aerial surveillance
flights, to the region and especially the South
China Sea. These provocations have been vastly
escalated by the Biden administration.
Americans must soon put the shoe on the other
foot and ask how Washington would react if
instead China was surrounding the US with
weapons of war and military bases.
Ten months after Biden entered the oval office,
US reconnaissance aircraft had flown
over 2,000 sorties in the South China Sea,
the East China Sea, and the Yellow Sea,
including near China’s coast. That same year,
Biden
nearly doubled the deployments of aircraft
carrier strike groups in the South China Sea.
Are You Tired Of
The Lies And
Non-Stop Propaganda?
In 2022, US spy planes flew 1,000 sorties in
the South China Sea including, in some
instances, flying just over a dozen miles from
the baseline of China’s mainland territorial
waters. US aircraft carrier strike groups and
amphibious alert groups made eight deployments
to the region. Last year, Biden sent
nuclear-powered attack submarines to the South
China Sea 12 times.
Concurrently, the US is attempting to
wrangle its allies in the
confrontation with China, bringing the
north
Atlantic alliance to the
Indo-Pacific targeting Beijing, and building
various alliances such as
AUKUS and
the Quad with Australia, Japan, and India,
eyeing an east Asian version of NATO.
The Trump administration formally
rejected almost all of China’s claims to the
waters in the South China Sea. Washington has
been challenging China, using the Navy’s Seventh
Fleet,
inserting itself into disputes between
regional actors there whom all have
overlapping claims on the waters including
over various, sometimes unmanned, rocks, reefs,
islands, islets, and archipelagos. Under Biden,
the policy has been
reaffirmed.
Even if it means war with China, Biden’s
administration has
pledged
that the US will defend
Japan‘s claims to the uninhabited Senkaku
Islands. The Senkaku Islands are claimed by
Beijing, Tokyo, and Taipei. Similarly,
Washington has
promised the US military will come to the
Philippines’ defense in the event of a
violent conflict with China, including in the
South China Sea, potentially over the disputed
Whitson Reef, which is claimed not only by
Beijing and Manila but by Hanoi as well.
The Navy routinely conducts so-called
Freedom Of Navigation Operations (FONOPS),
in the waters surrounding China, sailing
warships through the waters, particularly in the
South China Sea, usually
provocatively close to Chinese controlled or
claimed islands.
Additionally, Biden’s administration has
overturned almost 50 years of US-Taiwan policy,
which has largely kept the cross-strait peace.
Per the
former approach, the US would
never commit to defending or not defending
the island, which the US views as part of
One-China, against a potential attack on the
breakaway province. Critically, “strategic
ambiguity” has aimed to deter Beijing from
attempting to retake the island by force and, at
the same time, to discourage Taiwan’s radical
factions seeking to declare independence.
Biden himself has
frequently made what were thought to be
“gaffes”
contradicting long-standing US policy on
Taiwan. The president has repeatedly insisted
that America’s sons and daughters would be sent
to the island to fight this war with China that
his administration is actively provoking.
Although, this year both the commander of US
Indo-Pacific Command, Admiral John Aquilino, and
the Director
of National Intelligence (DNI) Avril Haines
have
confirmed “strategic ambiguity” is dead and
gone.
China has made clear that Taiwan is a “red
line.” While the American side promises they
only want to “deter”
war with these
actions, Beijing has repeatedly said that
they seek a “peaceful reunification” with Taiwan
but they have not ruled out using force.
Washington’s actions
make war more likely.
The US is now
committing billions of dollars in
military aid to Taiwan,
expanding US National Guard training
programs with the Taiwanese military,
continually sending more Congressional
delegations to the island,
deploying
higher numbers of US troops to
the island,
training hundreds of Taiwanese soldiers for
war on US soil,
converting Taiwan into a “giant
weapons depot,” and
sailing American warships through the
sensitive Taiwan strait almost every month.
Senior Fellow at Defense Priorities and Retired
Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Davis
has explained that a war with China over the
island of Taiwan could see American cities
obliterated with nuclear weapons over an issue
which does not affect our national security
unless we unnecessarily involve ourselves. Davis
details the dire risks of this extreme
bipartisan bellicosity,
It is crucial to understand that for China,
the Taiwan issue is not merely a
core interest, but an
emotionally charged one. They are far
more willing to pay extraordinary costs,
sacrifice many men, and could risk it all to
eventually compel unification with Taiwan.
The issue does not directly affect our
national security unless we get involved.
If we eventually choose war with China over
Taiwan, we will at best suffer egregious
losses in ships, aircraft, and troops; in a
worst-case, the war could deteriorate into a
nuclear exchange in which American cities
are turned into nuclear wastelands, killing
millions.
America should never take such risks unless
our security and freedom are directly
threatened. Fighting China for any reason
short of that would be a foolish gamble of
the highest order.
China is more often
becoming the
favorite excuse for our mammoth Pentagon
budget, which is already
closing in on $900 billion, depleting our
resources and capital. As it is, we actually
spend
nearly $1.5 trillion on the national
security state every year.
This policy which threatens all of us dearly, is
implemented by
entrenched bureaucrats ideologically
committed to the
neoconservative agenda of
global domination and the
military-industrial complex giants currently
ensnared in a huge “price gouging” scandal
are the beneficiaries.
These firms are ripping off American taxpayers
so blatantly– reaping obscene profits ranging
from 40% to as high as 4,000% - that last month
some prominent senators sent a letter
demanding an investigation to our Raytheon
board member turned Pentagon chief Lloyd Austin.
During a recent 60 Minutes
report, Shay Assad, who worked as a Pentagon
contract negotiator for 40 years, cited numerous
examples to the outlet
explaining that these arms industry
behemoths overcharge the DoD for everything from
“radar and missiles … helicopters … planes …
submarines… down to the nuts and bolts.”
Such “astronomical price increases” have sharply
spiked amid Washington’s
exponentially rising demand for weapons
systems to both bolster Taiwan and Kiev, the
report said.
Decoupling is the absolute worst policy to enact
even in peacetime. But as we are nearing
brinkmanship with China, it should be most
unthinkable. As Otto T. Mallery, the late 19th
century liberal,
wrote “if soldiers are not to cross
international boundaries, goods must do so.
Unless the Shackles can be dropped from trade,
bombs will be dropped from the sky.”
Americans are not supposed to be living and
dying in service of an Empire seeking global
hegemony. As the former Congressman and
presidential candidate Ron Paul once
said:
…[H]ow much longer can we afford this
unnecessary and counterproductive
extravagance? While our government engages
in deficit spending to fund its military
exploits overseas, detracting from our own
productivity, countries like China are
filling the void by expanding their trade
opportunities. I have never understood this
talk of our military presence as a
“strategic reserve of Western civilization.”
Instead, the best indication of our
civilization has been our prestige in
international trade. We should let the best
measure of our American greatness come from
free and peaceful trade with other nations,
not from displays of our military might.
This is also the view of current Presidential
candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. who in a major
break with the hawks in his own party, the
Democrats,
offers the best option for Americans when it
comes to relations with China.
During his recent Twitter space event, former
Congresswoman and currently serving Army
National Guard Lieutenant Colonel Tulsi Gabbard
asked Kennedy whether war with Beijing was
necessary.
His answer was clear,
Let’s recognize the reality that China is a
very ambitious nation and it does want to
compete. But the reality is it doesn’t want
to compete with us militarily. [China is]
still relatively poor compared to [the
United States]. I think we [should] be
competing with them. On an economic
platform, not a military one. I’m not
frightened by China. That kind of
competition would be good for the whole
world. It would be a collaborative
competition, if you will. China does not
want a war with us. We were told after the
Cold War period that we’d get a peace
dividend. We never got that peace dividend.
We now spend more on our military than the
next ten countries in the world. It’s [kind
of] a self-fulfilling prophecy. We should be
deescalating. We should be talking with
China, for god’s sake. We haven’t talked
with them in five years. Any talks with
China should not be about military
swaggering. The Chinese have been doing a
lot better than us because they’ve been
projecting economic power abroad. Why are
[we] trying to create a war with China? Why
are [we] making Taiwan a military issue? Let
Taiwan and China figure it out. They don’t
want war. They want prosperity. Let’s
deescalate. Let’s figure out how to have a
financial relationship with them that
rebuilds the American industrial base.
This is not just Kennedy’s words, even DNI
Haines
admitted to the House Intelligence Committee
that the US does not assess that China wants
war.
Our nation is
broke and
more than $30 trillion in debt, we cannot
afford decoupling or war with China. Nor can we
morally afford another war, which decoupling,
particularly under the current circumstances,
would make exponentially more likely.
In May, new research
published in a
study by Brown University’s ‘Costs of War’
project
found that “a reasonable and conservative
estimate
suggests that at least 4.5 million people
have died in the major post-9/11 war zones.”
The same Republicans and Democrats responsible
for those wars are now
leading us down the path of violent
confrontation with China. We can just say no
and enact a policy of free trade, diplomacy, and
peace. It does not have to be this way.
Connor Freeman is the assistant editor and a
writer at the
Libertarian Institute, primarily covering
foreign policy. He is a co-host on the Conflicts
of Interest podcast with Kyle Anzalone and Will
Porter. His writing has been featured in media
outlets such as Antiwar.com, where he is a news
writer, as well as Counterpunch and the Ron Paul
Institute for Peace and Prosperity. He has also
appeared on Vital Dissent, Around the Empire,
Crashing the War Party, and The Scott Horton
Show. You can follow him on Twitter
@FreemansMind96.
Views expressed in this article are
solely those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.
Registration is not necessary to post comments.
We ask only that you do not use obscene or offensive
language. Please be respectful of others.
|
Search
Information Clearing House
|
The views expressed in this article are
solely those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.
|