China's economy must continue growing. Continued Western
investment is risky, all the more as it's clear the West is gearing for war. A
capitalist economy must grow. Without investment and returns, stagnate capital
begins to depreciate.
This is the point where Capitalism turns the imperialist
corner. If there aren't any more markets, then you must find them, create them
and if necessary force them open. And you must angle and strategise in order to
make sure your rivals don't beat you to it.
Xi does not want to fight a war with the United States but
his solution to the problem was to re-cast and expand China's already growing global
economic footprint. OBOR also known as the New Silk Road gives China something
to invest in and creates a multitude of new markets and opportunities.
Is this rank imperialism? No. Some describe it as 'slipping
into' empire. Through a global network of investments and inter-locking markets
it becomes inevitable that at some point the interests become strategic and the
government will turn to more aggressive solutions in order to secure them. And
so while no one sat down and Cecil Rhodes-fashion marked out a map of future
conquests in order to create some kind of uninterrupted geographic bloc, the
reality is an empire is nevertheless created. The US went down this road in the
decades subsequent to the Civil War and through phases expanded this project on
an exponential scale. Some (like large sections of the US Establishment) will
remain in denial of this reality but that's what it is. It's an empire and in
the case of the United States it has become the most powerful empire in
history. But it may not last very long.
The US has an Enlightenment/Liberal and even sacral or
religious narrative to maintain and so it has been careful to utilise subtle
means of imperial control. Subversion, coup d'état, assassination and other
methods have been the primary tools of Washington's praetorian class. The
Soviets used tanks, a crude if effective move which in the end was a propaganda
gift to its adversaries and created such bitter resentment that once the cracks
appeared, the satellites quickly collapsed.
What will China do? How will it run its empire?
This question remains open but China's recently constructed
military base in Djibouti indicates it may be patterning its empire along the
lines of the United States. However it has a difficult task ahead of it as
there are few places left on the globe that remain 'unclaimed' by Washington.
Virtually every corner of the planet runs the risk of intruding on Washington's
interests. Xi has already marked out a fairly bold path. He is
non-confrontational but at the same time pays little heed to Washington's
threats and warnings.
And while this cannot be proved in an absolute sense I think
a strong case can be made that the expansion and re-casting of the War on
Terror, what I've called War on Terror 2.0 (which began in earnest under Obama)
was in part an anticipation and counter to China's growing influence. Under the
aegis of this asymmetrical war the United States has established a substantial
military network throughout Africa and is using the largely contrived paradigm
as a means to expand its military footprint into other parts of Asia. The war
against ISIS and al Qaeda are the means. To counter China is the end.
This is complicated because there are many overlapping
interests. There's politics and geopolitics but there's also markets.
Additionally there's the question of needed resources, and resources that can
be seized in order that others can't get them. And of course another
substantial element which in many ways transcends all these categories is the military
industries themselves, the weapons merchants and the private contractors who
can cash in on training and providing security.
While the BBC made much of Cambodian bitterness toward
Beijing's economic dominance, the nations I fear for are those like Kenya.
They're literally caught in the middle. Nairobi has on the one hand forged a
very close relationship with the United States. The 1998 Al Qaeda embassy
bombing and the 2002 turn to democracy has allowed the two countries to forge
close ties. Additionally Kenya has a large Somali population which means it has
suffered as a result of the US fomented instability in Somalia and the larger
Horn of Africa. The US has capitalised on this instability in bolstering their
footprint and in deepening ties with Kenya and neighbouring Ethiopia, even using
them as military proxies. The relationship has been economic to be sure but in
substance it is based on security. In other words the Kenyans have allowed the
United States to operate out of their country and include it within its larger
military strategy. If Kenya attempts to dissent they are punished. As long as
they acquiesce they are rewarded with financial aid and are given diplomatic
cover and backing on the world stage. So they capitulate but like in many other
countries, the profits come with a certain degree of bitterness and loss of
autonomy.
But in the meantime Nairobi has forged a robust economic
relationship with China and has been a recipient of OBOR infrastructure
projects... primarily the railroad and port of Mombasa. And yet Kenya has
struggled to make the payments and has grown bitter over certain aspects of
Chinese economic dealings and the way it has harmed certain sectors of the
local economy.
The stage is being set for a proxy war. If it was the Cold
War the Americans would woo the Kenyans and get them to throw out the Chinese.
The Chinese would then back Somali Islamists in order to generate trouble for
the Kenyans. Or it could go just as easily the other way. If Kenya broke its
security agreements with Washington, the CIA would either overthrow the
government or back Somali militants and start a civil war. What targets would
the Somalis hit? The railroad and the port would be everyone's first guess.
As US-China tensions increase it's the nations like Kenya
(and Sri Lanka) that are going to find themselves caught in a vice... in a
trap. It will take a special type of leadership in order to navigate the
otherwise treacherous waters.
Chinese imperialism does present a viable threat to world
stability and certainly the US dominated Atlantic order. But such China
alarmism ignores Atlantic economic dominance, imperialism, neo-colonialism and
their own varieties of debt slavery, exploitation, pollution and the rest.
The Western market driven order doesn't resort to the seizure
of infrastructure. Such solutions can only generate more problems and
bitterness among the local populace. It's like a hanging a target on your back
and despite the carefulness on the part of the West, through the efforts of
investigative journalists and documentary makers much of the world is on to
just how the Western system works.
But the mainstream media will continue to generate the fog.
China is the aggressor because it engages in national seizure. The West is deemed exempt because it operates
through the platform of privatisation and international banking. Forced
austerity either gets the payments made or it allows political instability to
grow. If the government falls, the new power can make further concessions and
get the loans re-financed. And bit by bit these countries lose their
sovereignty... not to a nation overtly seizing their infrastructure but through
nations (via their markets and corporate-banking sectors) dominating the whole
economy.
Pence and Trump can play to their ignorant audience and
pretend like the US 'helps' countries out of altruism or that they have no
pretense toward power. The truth is the Western order's utilisation of
international organisations and banks are but liberal veneers for the same type
of raw imperial power. The IMF and World Bank are hated by the poor in the
developing world and with good reason. They don't just seize ports or
railroads. They provide the corporate front for the seizure of forests,
minerals and other resources forcing people off their land. They build dams
which enrich the corrupt construction companies and politicians who take
kick-backs but do little to aid the poorer classes who can't afford the
electricity and in some cases are forced to move because they've lost their
access to water or once agriculturally necessary seasonal floods have now
ended.
And while Wall Street, the FTSE, CAC or DAX may appear more
'liberal' or beneficent than Beijing's CCP, even this is an illusion. For in
the end the Western markets dominate the Western political order. The CIA,
Pentagon and State Department are supremely interested in the well-being and
flourishing of the US economy and thus in corporate foreign investment. They
monitor Wall Street closely and there is a degree of interpenetration between
the various entities. If a country makes a move that will wound a large US
corporation or cut off resources leading to inflation, the US Empire begins to
move. They start with their economic and diplomatic tools. If those don't work,
they hand things over to the spooks and the schemers. If they fail, the
Pentagon is called in.
It's a different style of imperialism. It's more subtle and
shrouded due to the liberal facade. Washington would rather throw an election
or stage a coup than invade but if it comes down to it... they'll do the
latter. The United States hasn't invaded and bombed scores of countries out of
some desire to do good. Rather the US has an empire to maintain... an empire
that became global after 1945. The fall of the USSR in 1991 presented a still
unresolved crisis. The US had a choice... either control all of it or accept
the fact that the collapse of the other side would mean instability and a
return to multi-polarity. The removal of the bipolar paradigm meant that many
hitherto satraps and allies would no longer feel compelled to stay in
Washington's orbit. New blocs could form, the need to ally or sign on to a
power-bloc was no longer necessary.
The US decided to control all of it, to seek unipolarity but
largely relied on soft power throughout the 1990's. The Gulf War and the
Balkans were the big exceptions to this and they served larger and more
immediate geo-strategic purposes. And yet a different faction came into power
just before 9/11, a faction determined to aggressively pursue the unipolar policy,
a faction that believed anything less would mean the US would lose everything.
And that's where things are at. The US Empire faces an
existential crisis. The internal debate is not whether the empire should
continue but should the US focus on Russia and keeping the EU within its
orbit... or should the US strike down China before it becomes too powerful.
There are many variables to these scenarios but either way it's the small
nations like Kenya that are caught and may suffer as a result.
The rise of China presents dangers but Western moral outrage
is a case of the pot calling out the kettle for being black. Western media will
continue to focus on the 'Chinese' angle to stories in places like Kenya and
Sri Lanka but they will not focus on the role of the US arms industry in
fomenting the tensions and the crises.... let alone why the US is in places
like Kenya to begin with. If a justification is given it will at best be
something spurious like the so-called War on Terror.
During the Cold War the US held non-aligned nations in a
special state of contempt. As the US and China move towards an overt Cold War
such neutralism will again become intolerable. And it's inevitable that
Beijing's economic interests will clash with Western 'security' interests.
This will foment instability and lead either to direct or
proxy war.
China has been careful to stay out of nations overtly tied to
the West, the unofficial satrapies and satellites of the NATO Empire. But for
nations like Kenya, Sri Lanka, Kazakhstan and others, they will all but be
compelled to choose a side... and yet such choices come with even greater
risks.
And for those invested in Western financial markets, those
who profess Christ and yet benefit from this militarist order and profit from
it... you have a degree of culpability. You may not be as guilty as John
Bolton, David Malpass, Paul Wolfowitz, Robert Zoellick, Christine Lagarde, Mike
Pompeo, Henry Kissinger, Jamie Dimon, Lloyd Blankfein, Mark Carney or John
Cryan by you're still part of the system that's breaking the poor in other
countries and profiting from the theft of their resources, the exploitation of
their labour and their desperation and misery. Your part of the world system
and profiting from its wars, past, present and future.