Is the US Containing or Provoking China?
On 3 July 2024, I spoke with Judge Napolitano on his podcast — “Judging Freedom.” The main focus was on China, which is one of the few issues that the Judge and I — as well as a good number of his followers — disagree on. I am certain that we will have many more discussions about US-China relations moving forward, as this relationship is now — and will be for the rest of this century — the dominant feature of international politics.
I worked on infrastructure projects as an advisor in PRC for 14 years..... Americans just don't understand them....worse they don't even want to try.... I'm a very patriotic American and they know this....but never ever threaten them....or anybody else for that matter
John thanks for being open and frank about this issue. Still, I disagree with you on some key points, though I remain open-minded as always.
What I see happening now is a struggle between the US and China to choose the battleground for their great power competition. If China is able to choose its battleground, it will be trade/business, the arena in which it can clearly out-perform all of its rivals in the world so long as there is a truly free market for Chinese products around the world. The US, on the other hand, has a very different battleground in mind, one that plays to its position and its perceived strengths, which is to use its massive imperial machinery to sabotage China's investments and trade around the world using whatever means necessary (color revolutions, regime change, pressure on vassals, stoking civil wars/military conflicts, etc.).
We can see this struggle over the terms of the competition very clearly. Both sides understand it perfectly well. The US knows they cannot compete with China in business hence two consecutive presidential administrations with tariffs and trade war, the global war on Huawei (including kidnapping the CEO's daughter), attempts to sabotage trade relations with Europe, banning certain imports (e.g., lithography) to China, lately accusations of "over-production" by the US, etc.. On the other hand, China has little experience projecting hard power around the globe to protect its own far-flung investments, and this is an area where the US has a distinct advantage. This is why the US is doing everything it can to stoke China into attacking Taiwan...if Beijing does so, then the US will have won a key fight in the struggle to choose its preferred battleground, China will have damaged its reputation and this will impact its ability to conduct trade. The US is also trying to lure China into some dirty fights in Africa, but China is playing smart thus far.
You made a point in the interview regarding the ability for the US to defend Taiwan in the case of a military conflict with China. That is, if the US prevails in choosing the battleground, will it actually be an advantage for the US, as the US itself apparently believes? First of all, Taiwan is a small island, right next to the mainland. There are no land borders via which to send support, and China has total dominance over the seas around Taiwan. All they have to do is sink any ship or submarine that gets anywhere near Taiwan, and it is game over. This is entirely different than Ukraine, and I don't think many people understand how easy it would be for China to impose a total blockage on Taiwan. Then we have to look at the state of the US military itself, which is an outrageously expensive paper tiger. Events in Ukraine and Gaza show a stunning lack of industrial surge capacity for US/NATO munitions, including many that would be relevant to a Taiwan conflict. China, on the other hand, has an unprecedented vast industrial surge capacity. They can also draw upon supply by Russia, N Korea, and others, which have developed large capacities in recent years. US bases and support in the region are politically fragile, for example if the US launches attacks on China from Okinawa we may very well see a mass uprising on that island. The US military is incredibly inefficient in all respects, and costs up to ~10x more to operate than an equivalent Chinese force. China has a much larger population to draw upon in a fight (largest in the world), including many single males of fighting age (thanks to the one-child policy). US military leadership competence has also been called into question in recent conflicts in which the US is a key player. Note that in the two main conflicts the US was directly involved with in this century, the US either leaned very heavily on allied forces/coalitions (Afghanistan) or bribed enemy generals to surrender without a fight (Iraq). There is more to say on this issue, but to me it seems clear that the US cannot possibly hope to win a shooting war with China in the vicinity of China, there is no hope of "defending Taiwan," and I would encourage you to study the issue. (The only way the US has any chance is if the shooting war happens far from China, but it is difficult to imagine a circumstance in which China could be lured away from its home base.) Finally, I haven't even mentioned the main point in this respect: Mutually Assured Destruction. If the US were to attack China directly, and if it begins to show any sign of success and threatens China's sovereignty...China has the option to nuke the US, and will do so if its survival is at stake.
Anyways, I always enjoy hearing what you have to say John, and look forward to more in the future!
PS: I think your version of realist theory works quite well for many nations, but may run into consistency problems when applied universally, such as in China. Anyways we should be cautious about projection of western-style motives and behaviors on a culture that is really quite different in many fundamental ways.