rebuttal to 'world class'

helping me refine my argument

In response to yesterday’s post on China defining a ‘world class military’, I received the following rebuttal:

"‘Do we know for certain that the Party through its armed wing, the PLA, would attack someone or some status quo condition once they felt comfortable they had a world class (presumably, in this instance, on a par with the Americans) capability?’ (quoting my column)

They've been attacking and stealing our intellectual property for decades and are pretty darn good at it. I'd even offer that they feel very comfortable in their proactive, aggressive actions in this area and approach "world class status" in subterfuge. I just wonder if the payoff for their investments in espionage and theft embolden them to take chances in other areas...such as armed conflict?”

I obviously did not make clear that I am not giving China a pass on its poor activity in a range of areas. They are clearly awful about stealing intellectual property. Yes, they are awful and give pitiful responses when confronted; same for cyber thefts. I don’t know whether it’s their sense of entitlement born of feeling victimised by their perception of the Century of Humiliation (‘if we have been mistreated, we can do whatever we want.’) or simply feeling they are the Middle Kingdom so they can do whatever they need. It could be they don’t think they can actually catch up on their own. I don’t know the justifications they offer themselves. In any case, the intellectual property theft, the malicious cyber activities, and a host of other similar actions are truly destructive and ridiculous behaviours for which they deserve no sympathy but have earned the highest level of scorn and retaliation (I assume on the latter as I don’t have access to classified or business activities). It shows that ‘great power’ military status doesn’t always incur respect as a great power if other actions are so malicious.

I also readily admit that China definitely acts aggressively against those it believes it can bully. No question that means the Philippines over contested land features and islands. It also means Vietnam, occasionally others. It’s sheer intimidation.

I also have said in prior columns that I think their debt diplomacy may be somewhat overstated in volume but is still exists to intimidate others.

What I did not make clear is that I definitely find China’s actions and attitudes as hideous and dangerous but my frame of reference for the cited quote above is t subjugating the world much as the Nazis and Soviets sought.

My pause, about which I should have been more direct in my remarks, is that the Chinese have learned a great deal from the Soviet experience in the 1980s. The CCP knows its power only goes so far as they saw Gorbachev’s decisions lead to the fall of the Soviet Union. They definitely learned that political opening was dangerous so they chose to have economic opening of a type. China’s was never going to be a free market system but aimed to garner greater technology and greater investment from abroad while then selling cheaply produced products to provie employment for the millions. That is not the same as a global armed conflict yet that is what may people seem to assume China will pursue once it has a ‘world class military’.

Perhaps they will launch a global armed conflict to defeat everyone. Even before the response this afternoon, I did not say that they would not do so but I said we don’t know for certain that they would do so. We don’t know a great deal yet we seem certain we can predict their behaviour.

That makes me nervous because it allows them to drive our policy rather than us. I prefer the United States pursue affirmative choices of its own, not one of trying to alter another state’s behaviour when our assumption is they are an ideologically hardened regime. That means we are trying to change something we think is immutable. That doesn’t work as it’s logically inconsistent. You can’t alter something you think is unchangable, can you?

I thought a great deal overnight about this column as I feared I had not clarified my thoughts as well as I hoped. Not helpful for the argument I was making but it did manage to spur discussion. Please always ask, retort or challenge as I am not pretending to be have all of the answers and the point of this column is to explore differing views of causes, effects, and consequences for the problems we face.

The meeting did not discuss chips in any detail other than to remind everyone that they are, as another comment noted today, central to everything.

Another topic that someone wrote to me about last week that I never addressed was the Olympics. This reader opined that the upcoming Paris Olympics, in an era of decidedly anti-Israeli perspectives around the world, could be a terrible repeat of Munich if we are not all careful. This was a horrifying thought that I am sure is motivating the Israelis—and hopefully the French—as they prepare.

Thank you so much for reading today’s response to thoughtful, appropriate comments. What do you have to add to the conversation? I welcome your thoughts of any type.

Thanks also to those who subscribe to the column. Your support enables and motivates me to write daily.

I am so proud of my first ever gladiolus I found last night. We had them every week in during my childhood in South America so it warmed my heart to grow one.

Be well and be safe. Please keep sending me your reactions. FIN