Is a U.S.-China hot war imminent?|Lee Yee
In July, Pompeo claimed the American policy towards China is harsher than the one towards the Soviet Union in the Cold War era. The approach has been shifted from “listening to its words and watching its deeds” to “ignoring its words and only watching its deeds”. Recent developments show that the U.S. is striding closer and closer to a complete de-linkage with China. The recall of the ambassador from China was just a prelude. What followed was the U.S. official interpretation that “one China policy” is not equivalent to “one China principle”, plus the emphasis that “the U.S. holds no specific standpoint towards the sovereignty of Taiwan”. Furthermore, during the visit of Krach, U.S. Under Secretary of State, Tsai Ing-wen stated that “Taiwan has the determination to take the critical step”. Adding fuel to this, Hsiao Bi Khim, Taiwan’s delegate at the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the U.S., introduced herself as the “Taiwan Ambassador to the U.S.” on Twitter. In view of all these, is the U.S. going to establish diplomatic relation with Taiwan? Will it turn out to be the “October surprise” before the U.S. presidential election? In response, China dispatched fighter jets to violate the airspace of Taiwan, and as “Global Times” put it, “this was not a gesture of warning, but an actual combat exercise of attacking Taiwan”. In return, Taiwan authority urged China “not to underestimate its armed forces' resolve in safeguarding Taiwan”. As tension keeps building up across the Strait, will the U.S. intervene and finally trigger a U.S.-China hot war?
For the last few months, while analyzing the situation, quite a few observers have drawn upon the “Thucydides trap” originated from an ancient Greek historian. According to this theory, when an emerging power threatens to displace an existing great power as an international hegemony, there will be an unavoidable tendency towards war.
To be frank, these observers may have well overestimated the strength of China. Thanks to its huge population, China has become the second largest economic entity in the world. But we are now living in an era that national strength is rather defined by technological advancement. In reality, China is militarily inferior to Russia and technologically lagging far behind major western countries. To put it simply, China is yet to be capable of challenging the American dominance.
Back in the 1980s, in the heyday of its economic development, Japan has significantly outperformed the U.S. in the capital market, and some American scholars have come to the “Japan No.1” conclusion. Despite this, there was never a sign of military confrontation between U.S. and Japan. A decade later, the formation of the European Union posed new challenge to the American supremacy. But again, the two did not come anywhere close to a war. So why has the emergence of China, which in fact lacks the capabilities to overwhelm the U.S., aroused much anticipation of war?
Rudolph Rummel, an American professor of political studies, have made a thorough analysis on the correlation between wars and democracy in human history. After humans surviving a thousand years of darkness, it was not until the independence of the U.S. in 1776 that unveiled a democratic institution with public elections, separation of powers, multi-party system as well as freedom of speech, press, religion and assembly. After more than a hundred years, in 1900 there were only 13 democratic countries in the world. And after another decade, in 2015 the rose to 130, and dictatorial states without meaningful elections have become the minority.
According to Rummel’s statistics, there were 371 wars between 1816 and 2005. Among them, 205 were fought between two dictatorial countries and 166 between democratic and dictatorial ones. Interestingly, there had not been a single war between democratic countries. The conclusion is all too obvious: if there were only democratic states on earth, wars would not happen.
And here lies the fundamental reason why the “Thucydides Trap” has been more valid in the old days when dictatorial systems prevailed, but has failed to apply in contemporary cases between two democratic countries. And it also explains why the competitions between the U.S. and Japan or the EU have not led to any war, while the challenge from China will probably end up differently.
In a democratic system, to wage a war requires a consensus among the government, legislature, media and public opinion. It is rather a matter of the people’s collective will than the ruler’s subjective decision. Whereas within a dictatorial structure, no approval from the legislature is needed, media and public opinion are never respected and judicial challenge simply does not exist. A dictator or oligarch can just go to war at will.
From a dictator’s point of view, whether to enter a war or not is not subject to external circumstance, but the domestic status of his ruling. When a dictator’s position gets shaken by severe economic downturn and widespread public discontent, he will try to divert domestic dissatisfaction by means of foreign maneuvers. The dictator tends to single out those “non-conforming groups”, as so identified by the “little pink” Chinese patriots, and tries bullying them, as what the CCP is doing in India, Hong Kong and Inner Mongolia. The objective is to distract attention with extreme nationalism. More often than not, stirring up external instability has become a tactic to secure domestic stability of the dictator’s rule.
Perhaps a shrewd dictator will weigh up the strength of his counterpart before taking action. Nevertheless, the intrinsically defective system may hinder the dictator from understanding the reality and accessing different views. And personal intellectual and intelligent inadequacies may also breed unrealistic self-inflating belief. The resulted stupidity can make a tragedy more imminent than everyone may expect.
pompeo speech 在 Apple Daily - English Edition Facebook 的最佳貼文
#Opinion by Lau Sai Leung 劉細良 | "Proclaiming the principle of 'distrust and verify', Pompeo seems to have anticipated that the CCP would fake reconciliation. So, unless substantial moves are made by the CCP, there is no way out. The moves are not about buying soybeans from the U.S., but about Hong Kong."
Read more: https://bit.ly/32cTH2k
"蓬佩奧宣示的distrust and verify態度,好似早就估到中共會扮和解,所以封咗後路,公開表明除非有實際行動,而這實際行動,關鍵亦不再是買大豆,而是在於香港。"
____________
📱Download the app:
http://onelink.to/appledailyapp
📰 Latest news:
http://appledaily.com/engnews/
🐤 Follow us on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/appledaily_hk
💪🏻 Subscribe and show your support:
https://bit.ly/2ZYKpHP
#AppleDailyENG
pompeo speech 在 李怡 Facebook 的最讚貼文
China’s “New Squabbling Situation” (Lee Yee)
Yesterday, I mentioned that the US deterred the Soviet Union’s intention to employ nuclear weapons to attack China’s military base in 1969, and since then implemented a half-century policy of interactions with China. Although the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has always said that “the US will never give up their ambition to destroy our nation,” looking back at history, even when the Eight-Nation Alliance invaded China in the nineteenth century, the US did not make territorial claims from the Qing empire. Instead, it advocated “open doors to share the benefits equally” to avoid China being carved up. The US’ share of the Boxer’s indemnity has been gradually paid back through the training of Chinese talents and the studying of Chinese students in the US. The Rockefeller Foundation founded the Peking Union Medical College (PUMCH) in 1917, the predecessor of Tsinghua University, bringing modern western medicine into China. When the Second Sino-Japanese War broke out, a veteran American military aviator Claire Lee Chennault was hired as an aviation adviser and trainer in China. He organized the First American Volunteer Group (AVG) of the Republic of China Air Force, nicknamed the Flying Tigers, and assisted China in fighting against the Japanese in World War II.
In response to the anti-China speech given by the US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, a mainland Chinese netizen commented, “you needed education, they gave you Tsinghua University; you needed medical care, they gave you PUMCH; you needed to fight against Japan, they gave you the Flying Tigers; you needed to oppose the Soviet Union, they gave you a platform; you needed to open up, they gave you foreign funding; you needed trade, they gave you a trade surplus...You say that they have an endless ambition to destroy your nation, they will give it a try!” This is a very vivid description of how Sino-US relations have evolved so far.
Just a few days before Pompeo delivered his “Communist China and the Free World’s Future” speech, Chinese State Councilor and Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi also gave a long speech at the inaugural ceremony of the Xi Jinping Thought on Diplomacy Studies Centre on July 20. The speech was titled, “Study and Implement Xi Jinping Thought on Diplomacy Conscientiously and Break New Ground in Major-Country Diplomacy with Chinese Characteristics." I share the URL here ( https://www.sohu.com/a/408705618_99900926 ) and strongly recommend readers to browse this masterpiece. Let’s see if anyone can tell me after reading it, what is the content of Wang’s three to four thousand words on “Xi’s Thought on Diplomacy,” and what specific facts were there about “breaking new ground in major-country diplomacy.” Nowadays, the daily news is about Western countries’ policies, acts, and speeches directed at China and Hong Kong. Mainland netizens have recently lined up the front-page headlines of the Chinese internal newspaper “Reference News,” and they were all, “China condemns…, China warns the UK…, China is resolute to fight back…” This is not at all a new diplomatic situation but a new squabbling situation.”
After reading Wang’s speech, why not make a comparison to see if this Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs, who has the same ranking as the US Secretary of State, is of the same caliber and merit as Pompeo? Then you will understand why the US now refuses to restart dialogue with China and only looks at China’s actions.
Looking at the successive Chinese foreign ministers after the establishment of the People's Republic of China in 1949, with the exception of the time during the Cultural Revolution, Zhou Enlai, Chen Yi to Qian Qichen were all decent. I still remember that after the breakthrough in Sino-US relations in 1971, the New York Times columnist James Reston visited Zhou Enlai in China and their battle of words was brilliant. Why does the current foreign minister only speak empty words but know not what they are?
Of course, this is related to the current situation in China for the apotheosis of the core leader. In addition to the unknown “Xi Jinping’s Thought on Diplomacy,” there will be “Xi Jinping’s Thought on Economics, Education, Military…” one after another.
A netizen quoted Wang’s speech and left a comment, “Brown-nosing is linguistic corruption and spiritual bribery...The giver only has to expend dignity and cunning with words, and the recipient is rewarded with personality and public interests. It is consensual for both giver and taker, and they usually have a tacit understanding where they jointly commit an ugly conspiracy...In a totalitarian society, brown-nosing is a multiple outbreak and refractory Covid-19. After an organized and large-scale epidemic, it will eventually become an incurable disease of personality cult detrimental to the entire nation and society.”
German Protestant theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer said that “the nature of folly is a moral rather than an intellectual defect.” I believe this moral defect stems from a totalitarian system. When power becomes absolute, all those in power at various levels will, as Lu Xun said, “fawn upon their superiors and be overbearing upon those below.” The regime causes those with authority to never hear the true voice, how is this not stupid?
pompeo speech 在 Secretary Pompeo delivers remarks at Voice of America 的推薦與評價
... <看更多>