Announced in the fall of 2013, China's Belt and Road
Initiative (OBOR) also known as the New Silk Road continues to garner attention
as the magnitude and scope of the project is beginning to set in.
And indeed the largest coordinated infrastructure project in
recorded history extends well beyond the geography of the historical Silk Road.
The focus hasn't come from American mainstream media outlets as such stories
are of little interest to the domestic audience. However, international news
outlets like the BBC are starting to really pay attention. The stage is being
set.
Recently I listened to a BBC-Compass podcast series and one
of the episodes focused on Kenya and its new railroad-port infrastructure. The
BBC often does a good job when it comes to such radio documentaries and I
listened with interest.
I was hardly surprised to find the BBC casting OBOR in an
ominous tone. The BBC's recent coverage of Russia has certainly been sub-par if
not duplicitous and yet they've run many interesting stories about China.
In this case the reporting could be rightly described as
fearmongering at yet I would call it semi-justified fearmongering. China is
certainly expanding its power and their debt diplomacy (or debt trap as some
would have it) is setting the stage for future control on the part of Beijing.
But that's where the analysis begins to fail. Beijing is
painted as the aggressor when in fact they're not behaving any differently than
the West has over the past couple of centuries. The Western powers engaged in
direct military colonialism which is something China has not engaged in. In
that sense they remain a regional power. But post-WWII the West has engaged in
a type of post- or neo-colonialism which has largely eschewed direct political
control and has rather resorted to a network of market and security
arrangements which allow the West to also play no small role when it comes to
political influence in various former colonies. In other words the West wields
tremendous economic power, sells weapons and uses these nations for bases and
operations and when necessary they quietly (for the most part) intervene in their
politics. The nations of Africa (and in part Asia and Latin America) are not
directly controlled by the political structures in France, the UK or
Washington... but they are controlled indirectly. And debt plays a huge part in
this control. Or for the sake of simplicity it could simply be stated that
money and finance are the dominating factors. The nations that have the
capital, the markets and the tools, nations such as the members of the G7 wield
the power. China, Russia, India and Brazil represent the major economic powers outside
the G7 and some within it such as Japan are limited in their power due to
almost complete military dependence on the United States. To further complicate
things, India has joined BRICS (along with Brazil, Russia, China and South
Africa) and yet has moved into a military alliance with the United States.
Under Bolsonaro, Brazil also looks to make a hard turn toward the United
States. BRICS as a rival power to the financial structures of the G7 seems
potentially in doubt.
Until Xi Jinping came to power it remained safe to say that
China's resurgence and even geopolitical reassertion were regional in their
scope. In terms of direct military and political interests Beijing's focus
remains in the Western Pacific and their borders touching Central Asia and the
Subcontinent. Their 'aggression' is in many ways a counter to Washington's
continued push to militarily surround China and maintain its unipolar hegemony
over the region.
But China has reached a tipping point and anyone should have
been able to see it coming. Their crisis is not unique, but rather it's a
crisis inherent within the Capitalist system. After rejecting Maoist-style
Stalinism in the late 1970's, China (under the banner of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics) embraced capitalism with
unbounded zeal and abandoning any remnant of pseudo-communist principles it
proceeded to sell out its population as a cheap labour platform for Western
investment. This state-sponsored and orchestrated capitalism proved
particularly potent in that it could efficiently facilitate their rapid
economic rise and over the past four decades China has undergone an
unprecedented financial and social transformation that is on such a vast scale
that it's hard to grasp.
After a meteoric rise to the second largest economy in the
world, the nation has reached a crisis. There's little room left for domestic
expansion. We've all heard of the newly constructed empty cities. Chinese wages
have risen and while it's still the workshop of the world... that reality is
beginning to change. The legitimacy of the CCP (the misnamed and now
anachronistic Chinese Communist Party) is rooted in this very transformation
and continued economic growth. While Mao's picture still looms over Tiananmen
Square, the truth is the party has completely and utterly repudiated everything
the man stood for. So how do they rule? What's their mandate?
This question is all the more important when one considers
the fact that China faces serious social unrest. The upheaval born of the
population shift and demographic shake up of the past forty years plays a part.
There have been winners but also losers. There are a lot of people who have not
benefitted from the social transformation and they continue to be angry and
grow ever the more frustrated. There are daily riots, demonstrations and
continued unrest, events which the government desperately tries to hide from
the domestic and global audiences. The Beijing government is quite fearful that
these movements will consolidate and present a serious challenge to their power
or generate a crisis which might proliferate and/or consolidate with other
dissident movements such as Falun Gong, the Tibetans, the Uighurs and
increasingly Evangelical Christians. It is noteworthy that the Vatican's recent
agreement with Beijing seems to alleviate some of the fear surrounding the very
powerful and influential Roman Catholic Church.
The post-Mao CCP's narrative has been founded (due to Deng
Xiaoping) on economic growth and prosperity. If the GDP and the larger economy
don't keep growing, then their legitimacy can be questioned. And this in many
ways echoes something deeply rooted in the capitalist system as a whole. It
must continue to grow or die. Stagnation will result in instability and an
opportunity for the competition to seize the initiative and even the narrative.
The CCP's 'competition' is suppressed and weak but it's still there and they
fear it.*
The economic crisis of 2008 taught Beijing the dangers of
putting too many eggs in the Western basket. Vast purchases of Western
currency, bonds and securities guaranteed Western investment and a degree of
stability but since then the CCP has realised they've boarded an unstable even
sinking ship and they've begun to react to this. Their Xi-era economic policies
are a result of unease vis-à-vis the West and are a reaction to a crisis they
perceive the West will continue to face.
And make no mistake, China's economic turn which accelerated
under Xi's rise in 2012 is playing no small part in explaining why the US has
stepped up the pressure on China and seeks now more than ever before to break
its power and force some kind of change in the CCP. Xi's Mao-like consolidation
of power in 2016 has only amplified this and hence it's proven interesting that
the US Establishment has largely (if quietly) supported Trump's anti-Beijing policies.
Like Mao, Xi has launched a type of Cultural Revolution in order to consolidate
power. Three decades of foreign money flowing into his country has generated a
lot of division and divided loyalties. While his Cultural Revolution has
manifested itself in a different way... a neo high-tech surveillance and
censorship state in lieu of Mao's purgative Red Guards... the premise and
purpose are similar. He wishes to wrest back control of China in a very
non-communistic (but Stalinistic) China
for the Chinese campaign.
The US remains in mortal fear of Beijing's financial power
reaching the point that it can challenge US dominance of the global financial
system. The US through its currency and extensive economic penetration is able
to control the global economy. Everyone must play by America's rules, at least
to some extent. Nations and corporations can get around the US and trade with blacklisted
Cuba and Iran but they will not be able to do business with mainstream
financial institutions, which are all routed through or connected with the US
economy. It's a significant disincentive.
Through a growing number of multilateral institutions like
the SCO and BRICS, China has given every indication that it will eventually
seek to create a rival system which will end US-Atlanticist dominance as
represented by organisations such as the G7. The Russian backed EAEU is but
another tool of the SCO bloc which seeks to make this challenge a reality.
Again, the recent Bolsonaro victory in Brazil has cast the BRICS project into
doubt and many are waiting to see just how the regime in Brasilia will
negotiate their place in that order.
The truth is the United States is struggling to keep the
world in its grasp. Rising powers like Brazil, India and South Africa while on
the one hand remain allies of the United States, they are unwilling to
completely submit. Due to its historical antagonism with China, India has
entered into a military alliance with the United States but Modi has proven
unwilling to completely surrender to US dominance. BRICS is but one indication
of this. His continued 'shopping' for weapons and trade deals with the likes of
France and Russia demonstrate that he doesn't trust Washington and knows that
all too easily his nation could move from being an ally to a mere satrap.
Clearly he is determined to guard against the latter.
Though it is a bitter pill for the ideologues of Classical
Liberalism to swallow, were China to offer a more viable economic alternative
paradigm, there are many nations across the globe that would flock to it.
Despite the speeches of figures like Pence and Pompeo and their warnings of
Chinese exploitation, the truth is that Beijing offers pretty attractive deals
and doesn't badger governments about embracing the Liberal Western order. This
has become all the more attractive as the American led West has wholly given
itself over to Feminism and Sodomy... thus making it far less attractive to
many nations which remain more traditional and conservative in their outlook.
Additionally the US under the present regime has undergone a
shift away from US unipolar primacy within the Atlanticist framework toward
something approaching rank if not raw hegemony. If the US continues in this
direction the Atlantic framework and its various institutions risk collapse.
Some American factions believe this is a desirable if not necessary move for
the United States to retain its unipolar position. Others fear that a collapse
of NATO will lead to a future breakdown of not only the G7, but organisations
such as the OECD, World Bank and the IMF.
And now even nations within Europe are flirting with a
rejection of Classical Liberalism. The V4 bloc has attracted a great deal of
attention in this regard but recent moves by G7 member Italy represent a
different kind of threat to the Atlantic order. The fact that Italy also signed
an OBOR deal with China sent shockwaves through the Atlantic Establishment and
we're still awaiting the fallout. Additionally as tensions increase the
viability of such larger organisations like the G20 is in doubt.
Some (including no doubt many analysts within China) believe
that such an American move toward raw hegemony will significantly weaken US
power and influence. Indeed some fear that Trump's policies will (in the end)
lead either to war or to Beijing's ascent to global economic dominance. The
Aachen Treaty signals a new Paris-Berlin (EU) bloc that would easily rival the
United States economically and given time could begin to rival it militarily.
Many other nations within the G7/NATO/EU framework would probably peel off and
be relegated to second tier status and undoubtedly many developing nations
would flock toward the OBOR/SCO bloc led by China.
Others fear such developments as the US would be faced with
an ever growing, even existential crisis and would either begin to slip into a
second rate or perhaps regional power... or it could face collapse and
fragmentation. There are multiple scenarios and a host of variables. It makes
for an interesting discussion but it's one too early to have. Or, the United
States might opt for another solution viz. a global war. The spirit of Curtis
LeMay lives on as there are those who would rather fight the 'inevitable'
Chinese war sooner than later. Those who think in such terms believe the war
could be won now but such a victory will not be possible in another generation.
Continue Reading Part 2
Continue Reading Part 2
----------------
*It's interesting to observe Trump's overtures to the DPRK.
On the one hand he is the very 'amateur' the Right accused Obama of being.
Indeed, were Obama to do half of what he's done they would excoriate him as one
damaging American prestige and utterly destroying America's diplomatic tools.
Trump may be a buffoon and a bumbler but I contend there's a
method to the madness.... not his to be sure, but found in the forces behind
him. I still think his rapprochement with the Kim regime is not merely to bring
peace to the Korean Peninsula but rather to flip the DPRK and bring them into
the American orbit. Some reforms will be required in order to assuage world
opinion but beyond that the US is happy to work with brutal and repressive dictatorships.
At that point the US can control the process of reunification
(or settlement) but more importantly gain a foothold within the DPRK military
command structure. They could potentially flood the nation with not only
economic aid but establish ties to the North Korean military.... which
eventually will create the very conditions needed to overthrow the Kim regime.
The US excels at establishing relationships with foreign militaries and wining
and dining their officer class. It proves 'convenient' when a political crisis
develops. Of course the DPRK presents some unique challenges, but money works
wonders.
But such a reversal or 'flip' will make China an overt enemy,
an easy enough prospect considering Kim Jong Un's somewhat unstable relationship
with Beijing. This also explains why Xi has made an extra effort to keep Kim
within his camp. Kim has benefitted from the tug-of-war but in time it may rip
North Korea into shreds.
Kim for his part doesn't trust Beijing but at the same time
he knows that if abandoned by them, his regime would collapse. Is he
entertaining US overtures? That's a question that I'm not sure anyone can
really answer.