Posts tagged conflict
The United States and China power balance
Mar 19th
This is a follow up to my “next conflict on the horizon.” And let me begin by stating I am not advocating a military buildup (although America does have to maintain a realm of competitiveness).
There is no larger threat to world peace than the growing imbalance between China and the United States.
Nothing. No larger threat. (just want to be sure everyone knows my point of view on this).
In the economic sense it is US, European Union and China (sure. You could throw in a couple of others but let’s call it the Big Three at the moment). In a military sense the EU drops out because they don’t have a combined military (and in fact I tend to believe a couple of the EU countries would love the opportunity to kick the other’s ass if given half a chance). So. It comes down to USA and China. C’mon. Let’s face it. Unless we have global pluralism or a “global country” (which we are not going to have) global peace, or alignment, will be dictated by balance.
And the balance is starting to get out of whack.
Economically it is way out of line:
The US has built up a massive trade deficit with China. The US argues that this is partly because China has kept its currency artificially weak, which makes its products cheaper overseas. I don’t buy the argument (although it could make up some of the deficit). China has a stranglehold on our economy. While some things may be complex this is black & white. Some things are just what they appear to be.
And the trade balance takes on even more perspective when you start factoring in population (which eventually translates into production and/or military capabilities).
POPULATION
China’s huge population gives the country’s economy a vast workforce from which to draw.
Thirty years ago, the “one child policy” was introduced in cities to limit the size of families, and this was reaffirmed recently when the population reached 1.3 billion.
One result of the recent economic boom has been a growing middle class, demanding a higher standard of living based on perceived Western standards.
Analysts predict this is likely to further stretch already limited food, water and other natural resources.
While the population is stretching important resources the good news is that it isn’t stretching geography (because if they were geographically bursting at the seams we would be in a world of hurt). But. 1.3 billion and growing is a really really big number. And envision if they eliminated the ‘one child policy.’ Yikes.
The Troubling Scenario
So. Beijing is building up its military forces. They have a very very large army with a whole bunch of missiles and stuff like that.
And combine that with a growth in popular nationalism (the belief that your country should maybe have more than it currently does … on any level you would like to ponder that).
Military. In recent years China has embarked on a rapid military build-up, acquiring the ability to project its power far beyond its borders. (hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm … and you would do that because … well … gosh … because maybe you want something outside your borders? Nah. Couldn’t be.)
We need to assume one day very soon China will be in a position to challenge the US as the dominant power in Asia.
Now.
China’s leaders say their nation’s rise will be a peaceful one. So. How much do we believe China?
US Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg recently called on China to reassure other nations about its intentions.
“Just as we and our allies must make clear that we are prepared to welcome China’s arrival as a prosperous and successful power, China must reassure the rest of the world that its development and growing global role will not come at the expense of the security and well-being of others,” Mr. Steinberg said.
Well. That sure makes me feel a lot better about the situation if they reassure us (didn’t Hitler say something about not taking anything but what was theirs in the first place?).
Ok.
Now let’s think about military strength and this national populism thing.
One of Mr. Steinberg’s predecessors, Susan Shirk, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian affairs under President Bill Clinton, says the combination of China’s growing military and growing popular nationalism presents dangers. “It creates the risk, not a high probability, but a risk, that one day China’s leaders could feel that to look strong in the eyes of their public they have to make a threat to Japan or to Taiwan and that they will feel that they cannot back down from that threat without jeopardizing their own domestic support or even their own survival in power. So I think that is a very dangerous scenario.”
In the world of relative understatements I tend to believe “that is a very dangerous scenario” is about a 15 on the understatement Richter scale.
In addition, what was once a radical fringe in national populism is now shifting slightly more mainstream (and we know how these things work … with a little nudge it becomes very mainstream). If you are looking for an example of what I mean, let me use a couple of quotes from one of the leaders in China’s national populism ‘fringe’:
“I am not just targeting Japan but all those who threaten the interests of the Chinese people,” says Li Nan. “Maybe even the United States and some others, I would see them all as enemies.” And Li Nan offers a view of how a future crisis, such as one over energy supplies, might spur on nationalist sentiment in China. “In the future, energy supplies will become more and more scarce. Today each American consumes 10 times as much energy as each Chinese person. So every nation will have to think about their own survival. At that time, nationalism will be the mainstream.”
Ok. I admit. I had to take a minute and ponder when I read this. It is the kind of vision that should give some in America pause for thought.
Anyway. I will leave you with a last thought from our government:
The US National Intelligence Strategy this year described China as presenting a complex global challenge.
There you go. A complex issue but we are on top of it.
I am feeling good. (slight gasp).
If you want to keep a secret call the Red Cross
Mar 19th

I love learning new things and I just did (ok. maybe back in December but I just thought about writing something because I just wrote about the dilemma of Conscience and the price of Evil).
I have always known that the Red Cross is staunchly neutral. Meaning that they will be silent in the face of any inhumanity or evil in order to meet the on the ground obligations of dealing with the human needs. They do this within conflict (war work well known) as well as humanitarian efforts for disaster relief – disaster being both natural and manmade. I didn’t know this but they have a network of humanitarian volunteers in over 186 countries.
Despite some pressure from other aid organizations the Red Cross staunchly defends its impartiality to politics and “evil doings” as being the advantage to serving the needs of the people anywhere.
Because of their stance in countries ravaged by war and genocide, the local Red Cross efforts have proven quite resilient. Basically, Red Cross (or Red Crescent societies – latter title preferred in many Muslim countries) gains access to areas others cannot in order to help those in need … because they are fanatically secretive with regard to what they see and hear around them.
The needs of those who are in harm’s way stand far above anything else they may feel.
I have one word for this – wow.
Ok. Let me share an example of why I say “wow.” (and I could use many but this ties into my Conscience post)
For example. In World War II the Red Cross could have possibly been invited to assist in aiding Concentration Camp victims but would have been required to tell no one about the Concentration Camps. Wow.
(this is only partially hypothetical because I believe they did work with Nazis in some situations)
If you want a moral dilemma take this one on. But I do know one thing. While I am fairly sure I couldn’t do it I am glad someone can…and someone does. I admire the Red Cross as an organization relentlessly sticking to its vision and mission and understanding their end objective – assisting people in need. They understand they cannot control Conflict but rather only serve those in the aftermath of conflict.
I cannot imagine how difficult it is to maintain their discreet silence in the face of terrible atrocities.
This is simply a “wow” post from me. I guess I never really knew, or maybe took the time to think about, the extent of their “silence to do good work” manifesto.
Wrapping my head around this makes my head hurt. Thank god for an organization like the Red Cross and the minds who created it with the vision they maintain today.
The next big conflict on the horizon (and what it could mean to America)
Mar 4th

Because I read The Economist all the time the continuing conflict between China and the United States rattles around in my head (they keep writing about it in varying degrees of concern to lack of concern).
But I start thinking about it again as we (the US) continue to live up to our agreement with Taiwan with regard to arms support. Our last ‘act of support’ included 114 Patriot missiles, 60 Black Hawk helicopters and communications equipment for Taiwan’s F-16 fleet. Oh. But it does not include F-16 fighter jets, which Taiwan’s military had been seeking.
All of this kinda pissed off China (who would love add Taiwan to their geographical portfolio despite what they say publicly).
Do I think we will go to war? Nope (I hope).
This little $6.4 billion arms deal for Taiwan will hardly alter the balance of power.
But China has been very clear with regard to wanting the deal stopped. In fact, Beijing publicly warned the US not to go ahead with arms sales to Taiwan.
But. This new growing conflict has some striking similarities to something we have seen in the past.
It does remind me of the good ole USSR – USA cold war (where we teetered on the brink of some significant conflict on occasion). In fact, the similarities are numerous. And just a little scary.
| Country | Population | Army (counting reserves) |
| Old Soviet Union | about 300 million | approx. 3 million |
| China | about 1.3 billion | approx. 3 million |
| USA | about 305 million | approx. 2.5 million |
| Taiwan | about 22 million* | approx. 2.1 million |
*all crammed in 36.1 square km of geography
It may not appear easy to understand why China is apparently prepared to confront the United States at this time on the two issues at hand:
- Arms for Taiwan
- Obama’s plans to meet with exiled Tibetan leader, the Dalai Lama.
Shit. USA has been selling armaments to Taiwan for 61 years since the communists drove Chiang Kai-shek from the mainland onto the island then known as Formosa. And even though lately it seems at least China and Taiwan have “warmed up” enough to talk, China still claims Taiwan as its territory though they have been ruled separately since Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalist army was defeated by Mao Zedong’s Communist forces. On top of this little issue, the Americans are also trying to find some sort of settlement between the Tibetan exiles and Beijing, which seized control of Tibet in 1950.
So. Here’s the deal. (and let me put the Tibet issue off to the side cause the monks in the Himalayas don’t have a lot of missiles at their disposal). On one side you have China, with the world’s largest regular army and have more than 900 missiles along its southeastern coast aimed at Taiwan. The Taiwanese military with about 300,000 regular army and 1.8 million in reserve is waiting on the island. Ok. Look. I am no expert but that seems like a whole bunch of people with a lot of guns staring at each other. Do I believe anyone is going to be hasty? No.
But. Once the first domino falls it sure is difficult to stop the rest from tumbling.
So. This may be the understatement of the week as I read some articles: “The Taiwan issue is the most important and sensitive one in relations between the two countries <USA/China>,” Dai Bingguo, China’s highest ranking official responsible for foreign relations said.
I am pointing all this out not only because it kinda makes me a little nervous but also because I think the good ole USofA could benefit from the rumblings that are occurring.
Conflict. Or the threat of conflict creates a varying level of responses.
One big response is it gives focus.
When you don’t know your enemy, or maybe better said, there are a variety of objectives to select from, actions and the plans become unfocused (that would appear to be our current situation).
Am I suggesting war is good? Nope.
Am I suggesting we as a country could benefit from rising tension with a country that has more people and a larger army? Yes.
For awhile I believe our country has floundered. Our direction has been unfocused. It’s not that we are doing bad things, but in our scattered attempts to better ourselves the truly effective actions just haven’t been achieved. Sure. Small steps are good.
But this is like talking about capitalism.
The best companies are the ones that recognize and battle their competition. That’s why monopolies often struggle. Without competition it is easy to ignore any sense of urgency and permit yourself (and your organization) to stray from focused improvement.
Countries are the same (aren’t we just a big business organization anyway?). For some time we haven’t had focus. Al Qaeda is so nebulous it is difficult to know where to focus your effort to improve success. When Soviet Union was our focus we – the organization as a whole – prospered. If we ever doubted direction we only had to see the red flag with the hammer and sickle to regain focus. Education. Manufacturing. Aerospace. Medicine. All prospered through innovation and progress. There was increased urgency and focus.
I guess you could argue it is responsive focus rather than proactive focus (which you always hope you generate all by your lonesome). But. If you think of America as a fragmented organization, finding a balance between “responding to perceived threats” and “proactively putting yourself ahead of possible threats” is actually the best action direction. Somewhere in the gap between the two is the focus point.
And the key word in this entire discussion? Threat.
So. If China provides that focal point for America then maybe all this tension is good.
Oh. And last thought. I also believe if we as a country get focused on some of the right things, that will enhance our ability to avoid letting tension evolve into conflict. A focused America is pretty daunting (see Cold War and Soviet Union as a prime example).






