Soros encourages the US to adopt a Nixonian strategy of detente and cooperation with China to prevent the nightmare of a Chinese-Russian alliance that is already in the works. Because Putler. Yes, the Chinese are probably enemies, but the US can deal with them later.
Fully recognizing these difficulties, the US government should nevertheless make a bona fide attempt at forging a strategic partnership with China. This would involve identifying areas of common interest as well as areas of rivalry. The former would invite cooperation, the latter tit-for-tat bargaining. The US needs to develop a two-pronged strategy that offers incentives for cooperation and deterrents that render tit-for-tat bargaining less attractive....
If a bona fide attempt fails, the US would then be fully justified in developing a strong enough partnership with China’s neighbors that a Chinese–Russian alliance would not dare to challenge it by military force. That would be clearly inferior to a strategic partnership between the US and China. A partnership with China’s neighbors would return us to a cold war, but that would still be preferable to a third world war....The hard part.
The Trans-Pacific and Trans-Atlantic Partnerships, which are currently being negotiated, could offer an excellent opportunity for a two-pronged strategy but the current approach is all wrong. At present China is excluded; indeed the partnerships are conceived as an anti-Chinese alliance under US leadership. The president has asked Congress to give him and his successor authority for up to six years to negotiate trade agreements under fast-track rules that would deprive Congress of its right to introduce amendments. The bill has passed the Senate and at this writing is before the House. If the House approves, President Xi may be presented with an apparent threat on his visit in September. This is an appropriate response to China’s aggressive behavior in the South China Sea and elsewhere, but it leaves little room for an alternative approach. It would, as a result, be difficult for President Obama to make a bona fide offer of strategic partnership.
It is to be hoped that the House will not authorize putting the bill on a fast track. Instead of railroading the bill through Congress, it ought to be taken off the fast track. In that case, Congress would have plenty of time to correct the fundamental flaws in the proposed treaties that make them unacceptable as they are currently written. And that would also allow President Obama to make President Xi a genuine offer of a strategic partnership with China when he visits Washington in September.The New York Review of Books
A Partnership with China to Avoid World War
George Soros
ht Yves Smith at Naked Capitalism
2 comments:
If the US didn't back Merkel's expansionist policies for Europe, Russians would cool off. And if the Americans stayed neutral on the South China Sea, the US wouldn't annoy China. As a practical matter China and the US need each other as adversaries for their military development. There are no other large capable forces in the world so the two are always going to use each other as the bogey man but that doesn't mean they are really arch enemies just adversaries as we are in trade and every thing else.
Right. All sovereigns have the right and responsibility of self-defense and this applies especially to the great powers. Their militaries and intelligence services that make up the deep state are responsible for military policy and strategy and they work with the foreign policy experts in government to develop contingency plans. The five eyes who share intelligence —US, UK, Canada, NZ and Australia— even spies on allies
The optimal situation is a world order in which there a balance of power is maintained and there are security arrangements such as trust but verify. That order is now breaking down seriously. Complicating this is the US policy of hegemony — maintaining military superiority on land, sea air, space and cyberspace.
The real problem now is overreach due to neoliberalism and neoconservatism based on exceptionalism, not either Russian revanchism and irredentism, or Chinese expansionary ambitions.
A complicating factor is Germany's rise to power as the most influential nation in Europe, pretty much running the club, but still under the US thumb, where the US thumb includes the UK "special relationship."
Post a Comment