Barack Obama promises a less friendly relationship with China. (Courtesy of Coming Anarchy.)
I’m sure Morgan Stanley is hoping that no one notices.
It turns out that the Church I saw off Wangfujing is actually the East Church, or Saint Joseph’s Church. It’s one of the four main CPCA pseudo-Catholic churches around Beijing. Saint Joseph’s was built in 1655.
Today we went to another, the Western Church. The Western Church is the youngest of the four “directional” churches, built in 1723 and repaired in 1912. It’s appearance is sadly abused. We also saw another abused Cathedral of sorts — the very Soviet Beijing Exhibition Center, celebrating a political philosophy (International Communism) more forgotten than Christianity could ever be.
The hind of the building, from the sidewalk. This picture is shot through the gates. “Pax” — Latin for “Peace” — is written on the wall. Because Vatican II happened after the schism, the CPCA conducts a traditional Tridentine mass.
The very, very Soviet Beijing Exhibition center from behind the gates. Yet again, a kind guard would let us in to photograph. The building is now a convention center, and the red banner welcomes the China International Exhibition on Police Equipment as guests. The communist wreath encircles a dove, with PEACE (in English) written below.
Turn about 135 degrees to the left of the previous shot, and see this: a shopping mall. So this page has brought you three Cathedrals: one to the CPCA, one to the Communist Internationale movement, and one to Mammon. Guess which one is doing the best? Ayn Rand would be pleased.
Stairs to the bottom of the lake welcome those who walk on the lake. I remember similar stairs in Italy, where my hosts said cloths were prepared that would be sent to China. Perhaps this is the opposite leg of the trip?
A nice complement to an older story about an American warship docking at Saigon:
A top grade US guided missile destroyer arrived at one of China’s main ports Tuesday as part of efforts by the two countries to increase military-to-military exchanges.
“This is an opportunity for the US personnel to meet their counterparts in the People’s Liberation Army navy,” US navy officials said.
“The port call will provide the crew of more than 300 sailors aboard USS Curtis Wilbur a chance for sightseeing and cultural exchanges [and comparisons of rations — tdaxp].”
The USS Curtis Wilbur is deployed to the Western Pacific and operates out of Yokosuka, Japan.
It is part of the Kitty Hawk aircraft carrier group.
The destroyer is equipped with the Aegis Combat System which integrates the ship’s sensors and weapons systems to engage anti-ship missile threats.
Korean troubles, Chinese scheming, Perisan bloggers, and more! May 3rd, 2005:
Korea: Josh at OFK Fisks the New York Times‘ Nick Kristoff’s criticism of Bush’s Korea policy. Not that the Souks are helping. Between media lynching American servicemen and curtailing the free press, Seoul has other dreams than being a liberal democracy.
Willl South Korea lose face if its soldiers liberate Nork concentration camps? And if that day does not come soon, who will be the next Pyongyang despot?
Other Chinese endevours are smarter. Beijing is trying hard to woo the Taiwanese, but apparently not the Maoists. Simon reports that scary Philippine rebels are upset that China abandoned Maoism. I imagine Beijing’s reaction would be the same as when the Nepalese crazies said the same thing: You guys are violent, but Mao was never violent.
Iran: From South West Asia, Younghusband at Coming Anarchy looks at Iranian bloggers.
On the lighter side, Mutant Frog offers tips for killing a hooker and getting away with it… eek!
“Winds of Change Challenge (Bringing It All Together),” by Bill Rice, Dawn’s Early Light, 13 April 2005, http://dawnsearlylight.blogs.com/del/2005/04/winds_of_change.html.
An epic post on China, Taiwan, India, Japan, Australia, the United States, and peace in Greater East Asia and South Asia.
From a comment in the ensuing discussion
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. My point is not that the US will work against China per se, but work with like minded countries (not pawns… I think I clearly attempted to list each nation’s self interested reason for cooperating with the US position) to contain China from acting out aggressively towards Taiwan. Through this manner and engagement with China diplomatically we can wait out the clock for a more free China.
Update: Per request, my comment on the article
Great post. Your comment that through “this manner and engagement with China diplomatically we can wait out the clock for a more free China” is exactly right. I agree with your conclusions, but I’d like to comment on some of your supporting claims and implications
Just as Japan was able to strike quickly at Pearl Harbor, China may be able to strike quickly against Taiwan, but like Japan circa 1941, China does not have the access to oil and the ability to hold off a militarily superior United States.
The problem goes beyond oil — like Imperial Japan, Communist China does not have access to the outside world in a conventional war with the United States. The US Navy and US Air Force would be able to quickly shut down Chinese lines of communications to almost everywhere. Assuming both sides has the resolve to accept the military loses and the responsibility not to use conventional weapons, the situation would quickly deadlock in a stalemate militarily advantageous to the United States (China having a huge army….. in China).
On the mainland the People’s Liberation Army is militarily undefeatible, even with a total blockade.
Such an extended conventional war is unlikely with Beijing, but (barely) possible.
While the United States did help promote democracy during the Cold War, it did not do so with the passion and energy our nation needs to now pursue it. The Cold War was about pragmatic compromises, supporting unsavory dictators as well, especially in the Middle East, to keep countries in the US sphere rather than the Communist sphere.
In a post Cold War world, where different ideologies dominate the world debate, the old paradigm of working with unsavory nations cannot continue to ensure US security.
Between the Cold War to Globalization era, America switched from a negative to a positive foreign policy. As I blogged earlier
The Soviets were attempting to connect as much of the globe as they could to their command-and-control economy. For them this was a future worth creating. Reagan didn’t have a future worth creating. He saw a future worth destroying. We sought to disconnect every state the Soviets connected, and we succeeded.
Bush, with Clinton’s help, switched America from being anti-Communist to pro-Open-Society. There were just as many ideologies during the Cold War, but our relative weakness, our main enemy’s strength, meant we focused on his destruction.
If the US fails to defend a democratic Taiwan from China then it destroys any credibility won in the War on Terror with other nations. If we fail Taiwan what is our response to Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Ukraine, Japan, Australia, our European allies, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and many other nations that depend on American security?
While China may be a problem for the United States, it is not a threat to globalization itself. China’s future worth creating is a lot like ours, only with differente emphases. bin Laden’s hopeful future is a nightmare. China is a developing authoritarian state that is slowly opening up. Saudi Arabia is terrible awfulness, in country-form
It would be possible to America to abandon Taiwan and maintain momentum in the Global War on Terrorism. We could make a trade with Beijing for abandoning Taiwan, and structre the trade to keep up the forward momentum.
It would be unwise, but it possible. Our response to Saudi Arabia and others would be “China is not good but getting better, you are terrible and getting worse.”
Additionally, allowing China to take Taiwan by force would automatically make the 21st Century a Chinese Century, as the ability for the US to promote and defend global security would crumble. Any century that has a non-free government as the apex of the international order will not be a century of peace, economic development and the expansion of liberty.
A historical analogy is useful. Would the 20th century have been better or worse if the Britain did not intervene to save Belgium? We would have had a authoritarian-Germany-dominated trade-oriented Europe. Berlin would have torn Russia apart, crushed the terrorist states in the Balkans, isolated Paris, and probably back democracy in Belgium significantly. Instead, London saved Brussels and we got Lennin, Stalin, and Hitler for our troubles.
China is “good enough” to be the major player in Greater East Asia. It’s not the future I want, but it’s not necessarily bad.
Elsewhere in your post you mention that China’s strategy may be to make a quick negotiated settlement favorable to Beijing. If that happens it is important that we will have thought about the consequences clearly.
Because of Japan’s fears of a rising Chinese dragon, they have extended their military relationship with the US to include defending Taiwan. If war was to break out in the Taiwanese Strait, the economic engine of Asia and possibly the world would grind to a halt. It is in Japan’s long term political, national security and economic interests to work with the United States in providing a proper deterrent to China. It is encouraging that Japan has boldly taken this step
Good point. Assuming a conventional naval start, international sea lanes would quickly be taken by America with China’s navy destroyed. America would be dictating when and where trade continues and resumes. While mercantile cowardess leads nations to favor peace at almost any cost, American force rebalances the equation in favor of our interests.
While a popular Indian worry about any future US arms deal would be the possibility of another arms embargo, as happened with India and Pakistan over the 1996 nuclear testing. This scenario is unlikely to repeat itself, because the US strategically needs New Dehli and New Dehli is not likely to start a war with Pakistan.
Kind-of related, especially where Taiwan is concerned. North Vietnam invaded the South in 1972, and lost. America’s left-dominated Congress then imposed a de-facto arms embargo on Saigon, and two yeras later Hanoi easily won. Beacuse of the influence of a small but powerful left, America has won a reputation for perfidity. India (and Taiwan) are both taking this into account.
The United States along with democratic countries in Eastern Asia have an opportunity to build a constructive alliance to deter China from seeking its goals militarily, but they must act now and wait for an emerging dragon to reform democratically.
“Roh Hints at New East Asian Order,” Digital Chosunilbo, 22 March 2005, http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200503/200503220024.html.
“Seoul Is Beginning to Reap What It Sowed,” Digital Chosunilbo, 1 April 2005, http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200504/200504010037.html.
“U.S. to Scrap Ammo Reserves for Korean Army,” Digital Chosunilbo, 4 April 2005, http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200504/200504040035.html.
A state can be a positive force without being an American ally. While we distrust France, we recognize that the French economic engine is an important part of European trade. Likewise, India was a force for good in South Asia even when they were non-aligned.
So when Korea hints at leaving the Japanese-American alliance
President Roh Moo-hyun said Tuesday the power structure in East Asia will shift depending on what choices Korea makes.
At a graduation ceremony of the Korea Third Military Academy on Tuesday, Roh said Korea’s new role was of a stabilizer for peace and prosperity not just on the Korean Peninsula, but in East Asia as a whole. “Korea will calculate and cooperate if need be, and move forward with its proper authority and responsibility,” he said.
His comments were being read as a pointed reference to the country’s alliances with the U.S. and Japan rather than a mere statement of principle. Among core figures in the administration, there is growing dissatisfaction with U.S. and Japanese policies in East Asia, including North Korea.
or when Korea approaches the Chinese orbit
Military exchanges between Korea and China will intensify to a level similar to those between Korea and Japan, the defense ministry said Monday.
“China, more than any nation, wishes for peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula, so we plan to strengthen our military exchanges with China, including making defense minister meetings a regular occurrence,” Defense Minister Yoon Kwang-ung told reporters. “There is a need to raise the level of military cooperation between Korea and China to at least that shared between Korea and Japan, and it’s worth thinking about plans to help stability on the Korean Peninsula with China’s assistance.”
we should see it as a challenge, not a disaster. South Korea is still a force for good. But the alliance is over. American blood should no longer to spilled to protect South Korea.
Fortunately, America has gotten the message
Lt. Gen. Charles C. Campbell, the chief of staff of the U.S. Forces Korea, said on Friday that 1,000 of the current 12,000 Korean employees of the USFK [United States Forces Korea, the American presence that protects South Korea under United Nations Command — tdaxp] will be laid off and forces’ support contracts cut by 20 percent over the next two years. Campbell also suggested relocating some key military equipment reserved here for an emergency from South Korea.
Given that the U.S. has been telling us that even if USFK strength is cut, it will try to leave as much equipment here as possible, it is hard to believe that cost saving alone is behind the move. No: this looks more as though the alliance is beginning to slacken.
The government must think carefully about the consequences, in terms of both responsibility and money, of advocating its “cooperative independent defense” and Korea’s much vaunted new role as a stabilizer in Northeast Asia.
even if it means something as serious as this
The U.S. has unofficially informed Koreaâ€™s military authorities that it plans to scrap the War Reserve Stocks for Allies (WRSA) — pre-positioned military supplies for use by Korea in times of emergency. But the Korean government and military say rather than destroy the stocks or ship them back to the U.S., Washington will ask Seoul to buy them.
That said, this is serious. This is a much, much, much greater rift than between Europe and America after the Iraq War. This is Korea saying it wants to shift sides, and America letting it. This is the greatest diplomatic gamble South Korea has ever taken and the greatest set-back for the Bush Amdministration, ever.
India and Israel strengthen military ties.
Vietnam applauds U.S. trade relations, but complains about rules regarding catfish-dumping.
Dozens die in another Salafist-Baathist terror bombing.
There is a growing, interconnected world that peacefully pursues trade, freedom, and democracy. Not everyone is at the same place, but everyone is on the right track.
While the tribal neo-Klansmen of Iraq kill people to drive out the world. To [re]impose a hateful tyranny on the masses who despire them.
We are fighting for the free world — for the globalized world. Our enemies fight against it.