New Cold War???

The global power matrix is much more complex and diverse than during the old days of the ´Cold War´but like yesteryear it's all about perceptions.

Without doubt the rules of the game have been extended (trade, investment, technology etc.) but the most striking difference between the role of the PRC in the current global power structure and that of the former USSR's 20 years ago is the completely inverse perception of comprehensive power. (i.e. the USSR was perceived during her heyday significantly more powerful than her true capabilities would have justified but today the PRC is perceived significantly less powerful than her true influence would indeed indicate.)

The chinese leadership should be aware that the mere fact of being bullied around by western politics for rather minor incidents in Xizang (...compared with the real slaughter in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia ...) is a direct consequence of a ´defective´ and ´unreal´ perception of China in the western world. Put simply western elites do not see China as an established major power potentially shaping the course of the 21st century but as a struggling albeit giant developing country continously appeasing western power for economic gain. Beijing will have to correct this misperception in an effective but sensible manner or the consequences for China will be dire...

The Cold War never stopped. The Cold War had nothing to do about communism and was all about American imperialism. The Soviet Union simply provided the best boogeyman with which we could then justify endless escapades. However, obviously our cold war with the Soviet Union was real, though exaggerated, but it never actually stopped. What happened is we continued to try and contain Russia and bend them to our will.

On China we've been engaged in a cold war with them for some time. Our attempts to woo India and our giving the green light to Japan for remilitarization is about containing China much like we contained the Soviet Union keeping them in their little sphere as we dominated the rest.

On this same point we are also engaged in a cold war with Iran.

Granted none of these are at the scale of the Cold War prior to the fall of the Soviet Union.

The way forward for the United States is pretty clear. Weather or not the United States actually follows some or all of these policy prescriptions, is an open question.

1-- Since Iraq looks to be a failure, it is probably best to simply withdraw entirely not only from the Middle East but from most of the military bases the United States maintains overseas. Landlocked military facilities to be the first to be deactivated, while Naval facilities would be retained or decommissioned on a case-by-case basis.

2-- The United States must tell each of her allies that they're going to be militarily pulling out of the Pacific and Europe for economic reasons. A few years should be given for Thailand, South Korea, Japan and of course Taiwan to shore up their defenses against China. Poland and the Nordic countries would have to have time to shore themselves up against any misadventures on the part of Russia.

3-- The United states should also help Europe/Russia avoid massive immigration from high birth rate Muslim countries. Europe will be reluctant to do this for much the same reason that the United States is loath to limit immigration from its southern border. High immigration tends to offset economic difficulties of running a welfare state during a massive post war baby boom. As painful as such reform would be, it's easy compared to dealing with un-assimilated Muslim populations in European countries or the possibility that France could become a Muslim country if immigration trends continue.

If reforming the Middle East proves unsuccessful (as now seems likely) then most of the region will simply have to be contained.

3B-- Containing the Middle East/Russia/Venezuela will have to include developing alternative solar, wind, nuclear, biomass, and hydrogen energy sources. Speeding up this sort of research with government subsidies would be constitutionally permissible, given the fact that denying oil revenues to all of the current major oil exporters, would be squarely in US military interest. (And possibly in the interest of preserving a stable climate). (Please note that containment of Russia's energy export aspirations would be distinct from containing Russian immigration and emigration which are not a threat to the West due to Russia's sharply declining population and the current male-female ratio of its citizenry)(trends which are the exact opposite the Middle East)

China and India are already installing quite a bit of alternative energy. The United States simply as a foreign policy objective, would do all it could, to accelerate the adoption of alternative energy worldwide. If the United States, China and India could be made entirely independent of foreign oil, most of the problems emanating from oil export countries could be brought to heel.

4-- Comprehensive reform of both Social Security and Medicare will be needed in the United States. The gold standard and some sort of flat tax may also be policies that would shore up the United States economy/attract investment. Reform of the educational system of school vouchers and merit pay for instructors, will probably be a must for long term economic growth. Massive privatizeation of domestic social programs might give the federal government, money enough to pay down some of its 10 trillion dollar debt.

5-- Developing a missile defense umbrella to protect Europe, Israel, Japan, Thailand, South Korea, India the Philippines and Taiwan is a definite must. Research and development for better technology to detect weapons of mass destruction, aboard container ships and other instruments of world trade would also be wise.

6-- Due to the demonstrated vulnerability of satellite surveillance technology, the United States should make efforts to establish a moon base ahead of competitors.

Systems should also be created to "clean up" orbital space near the planet earth, removing a hazard to future space launches.

Collaboration instead of competition should be encouraged with Russia concerning the future manned Mars missions.

Working with Russia and Japan on tracking and defending against rogue asteroids and comets.

7-- Any future estrangement between India and China should be used as a opportunity to set up India as a counterweight to China. An emphasis on gradually increasing trade with India and gradually reducing it with China, would be wise if Chinese reforms toward representative government continue to be stalled.

8-- Economic foreign aid around the globe should be largely discontinued apart from any future impending world war conditions.

9-- Restore older interpretations of civil liberties, privacy and treatment of enemy combatants to United States law. Full restoration of constitutional protections of the citizens against government intrusion, would be a great way to lead by example, on the world stage.

The United States must tell each of her allies that they're going to be pulling out of the Pacific and Europe for economic reasons.

Click to expand...

All that does is make countries more independent or more reliant on another country like... China? Ironic! They aren't going to be the cannon fodder of US foreign policy when they don't benefit from the US. Pull out economically and how are many of those countries going to buy US defenses to beef-up with what dollars they no longer make because of a US economic pullout?

Though the new US administration will have to apply some quite painful adjustments in her new ´global strategy´ alas a radical disengagement from East/South-East Asia seems indeed very unlikely. Possibly Washington may be not very amused about the sprawling double-dealing of ´allies´ like Singapore, Thailand and even the Phillipines but leaving them high and dry would only accelerate China's establishment of her own ´Pax Sinica´ in the region.

After a liquidation of the Iraq adventure and some kind of ´stabilization´ of Afghanistan (probably including Pakistan and Iran) the US would probably try to strike a ´deal´ with Iran regarding a face saving disengagement (i.e. retreat) from Iraq and about some acceptable limitation of Iran's nuclear projects. (...though McCain would possibly try to exert more pressure on Iran.)

(More extensive ´realignments´ of US foreign policy are somewhat inconceivable from my POV but an upcoming severe economic crisis in the US could turn the tables..., looking just at how Treasury Secretary Paulson was all but smiles with Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao during his visit in Beijing. Someone obviously needed some money...)

As long as China does not officially declare US as an ideology enemy like the conflict between USA and USSR. Why, USA is looking for China to do something provokative anything China does that conflicts with predominately white nations interest it is condemned.

China should continue to follow Dengs policy for another decade.

AssassinsMace said:

All that does is make countries more independent or more reliant on another country like... China? Ironic! They aren't going to be the cannon fodder of US foreign policy when they don't benefit from the US. Pull out economically and how are many of those countries going to buy US defenses to beef-up with what dollars they no longer make because of a US economic pullout?

Click to expand...

I am going to update my orginal post so that even folks that read things the way you do Assassinsmace can readily understand. Adding a single word to the document should be enough. Never the less I will add a bit more explanation to the paragraphs that follow for those still confused.

I am talking about a strictly military pull out, instead of an economic one. An economic pullout suggests that any government has a right to tell private citizens/capitalists in their country what they can do with their own money, during time of peace. (as it applies to one free country dealing with another or with a member of the third world)

Richard Nixon's realignment, muddied the waters to such a great extent in order to split the two largest communist nations. As a byproduct the US treated China as an ally after the cold war ended. At that stage china looked to be making a transition toward democracy, but that has not happened. Since the US no longer has the resources to fight a cold war with China (and successfully contain her alone) it may be worthwhile for the US to pull out militarily from asia... at least for a while.

If nothing else the thought that the US might leave, would make Japan, Thailand, Taiwan and South Korea build up defenses enough to fight China should events come to that. Later on the US could return to Asia to protect any remaining governments with republican forms of organization (aka government severely limited by a constitution, with real elections instead of farcical ones)... should any such free governments remain for the U.S.A to return to.

What will the USA be doing during her absence?

Well you can look at my earlier post for most of it. Yet I will add a couple of last points.

1- Since the start of WWII the USA has not known a period of peace long enough to renew its institutions.(if its still possible given the cultural decay of entitlement politics that has set in) The first thing for any rational politician to do will be to wean Americans off of unnecessary government services and re-establish true independent adulthood for a wider section of the population. (nothing will infantilize a biological adult faster, then receiving "free" health care, schooling, housing and other services from a "Nanny State". People tend to enjoy goods pilfered from those more able then them selfs, so its hard to communicate the necessity of making such behavior cease.

2-- In order to the facilitate the construction of the "Nanny State" many elements of the United States Constitution have been interpreted absurdly or simply ignored by congress, the Supreme Court and the President. Re-investing the Constitution of the United States with teeth enough so that it can again compel elites in the states to properly abide by its provisions will be quite a daunting task during peace time and harder during any sort of war.

NOTE....For those of you who are interested in the United States Constitution and the extent to which it is absurdly interpreted or ignored, as many books that they can read on the matter. Perhaps the best of these books is called The Constitution in Exile by Judge Andrew Napolitano....

If the reforms I suggest are successful and honest but painful bankruptcy is successfully navigated by a talented future leadership, then perhaps America can return to the world stage, refreshed back to energy and magnificence it displayed before the beginning of World War I.

And that was a big word wasn't it?

And still China has offset the effects of an economic slowdown from the US and has trade deficits in favor of many of those countries for the last decade. It it were so easy, it would've happened already.

Raptoreyes said:

If nothing else the thought that the US might leave, would make Japan, Thailand, Taiwan and South Korea build up defenses enough to fight China should events come to that. Later on the US could return to Asia to protect any remaining governments with republican forms of organization (aka government severely limited by a constitution, with real elections instead of farcical ones)... should any such free governments remain for the U.S.A to return to.

Click to expand...

What makes you think that South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand etc. will "fight" China. Right now as it is Thailand and South Korea are just as aligned with China as they are with us. In the event of US withdrawl from the region, the smaller powers of Asia would go running to China's arms, eager to find a new benefactor. As it is South Korea can defend itself from the North. Yet we keep troops there, for political reasons. If you view it in that light having a military presence in Asia is good for the US. It keeps our allies aligned with us, and thus keeps their markets open.

Finn McCool said:

What makes you think that South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand etc. will "fight" China. Right now as it is Thailand and South Korea are just as aligned with China as they are with us. In the event of US withdrawl from the region, the smaller powers of Asia would go running to China's arms, eager to find a new benefactor. As it is South Korea can defend itself from the North. Yet we keep troops there, for political reasons. If you view it in that light having a military presence in Asia is good for the US. It keeps our allies aligned with us, and thus keeps their markets open.

Click to expand...

The trouble at the present time is, the United States is much closer to total bankruptcy than all the other nations who base their economies both on Fiat money and chronic government debt financing.

We have a situation in the world where United States Japan and Europe have extremely aged populations. United States Japan and Europe are also very deeply in unfunded welfare state debt.

At the same time China and the Islamic world enjoy rather young (youthfully military age) populations and they are creditors in world markets. Russia's kind of in between the two extremes with a shrinking population (and massive female led emigration away from their birthplace with a 4 to one female to male ratio) but a great deal of foreign-currency reserves due to energy exports.

In short all the authoritarian governments have all the good demographics and all the Republican governments have demographics as bad as any statistician could ever dream up.... and growing worse. I just don't see happy ending for all this any time soon.