Tuesday, November 04, 2003
RED CHINA BLUES
Somehow I missed it last week, but the Infidel, in responding to this post, argues that “the Korea Blogerati is too stuck in the peninsula funk, when they can't see this whole, nauseatingly long mini-series, that is the Korean War (1950-2003), as just a spinoff of the Cold War that the regional powers have yet to cancel.” He goes on to argue that the real problem is not Korea but China:
But he doesn’t seem to really want “to let China be China” (e.g. a recognized center of world civilization and economic If not military superpower) but rather prefers that we take the Cold War to the autocrats in Beijing the same way we did to the Soviets:
This is, if nothing else, an interesting example of thinking outside of the box. Of course this debate is nothing new. The issue of taking the Cold War to China is the very issue that caused Truman to fire MacArthur during the Korean War. Truman wanted a limited war, MacArthur, not wanting to fade away like old soldiers do, wanted to go out in a blaze of glory. The strong U.S. support for Taiwan is in part due to the guilt and recriminations of having “lost China” to the Communists in the Chinese Civil War.
Members of the “Blue Team” have kept the drumbeat going with books like The China Threat and Hegemon and the columns of Bill Gertz. Are they correct? Is China the real threat to American interests in the world? I think that the jury is still out but that it is quite likely that whatever the possible future trajectories, the “China threat” warnings may very well end up being self-fulfilling prophecies.
But even if one accepts the idea that China (particularly a communist/authoritarian China) is an implacable foe to the United States and its interests, it is hard to see how “declaring war on communist power” in China would either lead to its demise or to “provincial devolution.” An equally likely outcome of such a course is the rallying of an already intensely nationalistic people around the PRC flag. Do we really want to commit the most famous blunder of all time? I think that we are in many respects stuck with the same unpalatable alternatives when it comes to the PRC that we face with the DPRK: working with these regimes lends legitimacy to their repressive and dangerous existence; working directly to undermine them risks a devastating and costly war. I repeat, what are we supposed to do then?
Somehow I missed it last week, but the Infidel, in responding to this post, argues that “the Korea Blogerati is too stuck in the peninsula funk, when they can't see this whole, nauseatingly long mini-series, that is the Korean War (1950-2003), as just a spinoff of the Cold War that the regional powers have yet to cancel.” He goes on to argue that the real problem is not Korea but China:
The real problem here is not Pyongyang's missiles, or even the nukes. It's Washington's almost 2 centuries-old inability to let China be China, instead of the easily-manipulable free trade zone without a self-dtermined destiny.
But he doesn’t seem to really want “to let China be China” (e.g. a recognized center of world civilization and economic If not military superpower) but rather prefers that we take the Cold War to the autocrats in Beijing the same way we did to the Soviets:
Washington needs to declare war on the Communists' monopoly on power and encourage provincial devolution. With an east Asian alliance firmly anchored on Japan, Australia, and the Philippines, Washington can weather the storm until, with true peace, east Asia can settle into a more realistic political and economic pattern.
This is, if nothing else, an interesting example of thinking outside of the box. Of course this debate is nothing new. The issue of taking the Cold War to China is the very issue that caused Truman to fire MacArthur during the Korean War. Truman wanted a limited war, MacArthur, not wanting to fade away like old soldiers do, wanted to go out in a blaze of glory. The strong U.S. support for Taiwan is in part due to the guilt and recriminations of having “lost China” to the Communists in the Chinese Civil War.
Members of the “Blue Team” have kept the drumbeat going with books like The China Threat and Hegemon and the columns of Bill Gertz. Are they correct? Is China the real threat to American interests in the world? I think that the jury is still out but that it is quite likely that whatever the possible future trajectories, the “China threat” warnings may very well end up being self-fulfilling prophecies.
But even if one accepts the idea that China (particularly a communist/authoritarian China) is an implacable foe to the United States and its interests, it is hard to see how “declaring war on communist power” in China would either lead to its demise or to “provincial devolution.” An equally likely outcome of such a course is the rallying of an already intensely nationalistic people around the PRC flag. Do we really want to commit the most famous blunder of all time? I think that we are in many respects stuck with the same unpalatable alternatives when it comes to the PRC that we face with the DPRK: working with these regimes lends legitimacy to their repressive and dangerous existence; working directly to undermine them risks a devastating and costly war. I repeat, what are we supposed to do then?
