Oil & Gas 360– Eighty-three years ago the United States pivoted its foreign policy attention to the Indo-Pacific following Japanese military attacks on US Territories of Hawaii and the Philippines. Shortly thereafter, it also found itself in a war in Europe as well. It could not pivot away from either Europe or the Indo-Pacific.
Twenty-first century US foreign policy attention has mostly been directed toward the Middle East. Because of concern regarding Chinese belligerence and expansionary plans in the South China Sea and nearby areas, a “pivot” of US attention toward the Indo-Pacific was announced by the Obama Administration.
As a corollary, such a “pivot” also announces a reduction of activity elsewhere. In this case, these plans resulted in increased aggression by ISIS and various rebel groups, with Russian support, in the Middle East, Chinese expansion with its Belt and Road Program into Latin America, Africa, and Europe. The “pivot” did not materialize.
The Trump Administration maintained and expanded US activity in the Middle East, driving ISIS out of Iraq and Syria, in the process killing a few hundred Russians. It also negotiated the Abraham Accords between Israel and several Arab countries and a ceasefire/withdrawal from Afghanistan.
China continued its aggressive activities in the Western Pacific and increased its threats regarding assimilation of Taiwan into China. The Biden Administration announced it would “pivot” US foreign policy to the Indo-Pacific. It demonstrated its dedication to this idea with an impulsive withdrawal from Afghanistan. In response, Russia invaded Ukraine and Iran stepped up aggression by its subsidiaries, Hezbollah, Hamas, and Houthis to the level of active war.
China continues its Belt and Road initiative and expanded its activities and influence in the Middle East and Latin America through the BRICS group with Iran, Russia, and Brazil and even mediated a rapprochement between Iran, a long-term US enemy, and Saudi Arabia, a long-term US ally.
One of China’s ambitions is an international oil market priced in yuan. China also expanded its presence and influence in Africa, a source of critical materials and oil and gas.
An obvious conclusion from all this is that China is following a long-held principle of conflict, suggested explicitly by Sun Tzu centuries ago: Attack your enemy where he is weak. If the US “pivots” somewhere, our main adversary will expand its aggression elsewhere.
Threats to Taiwan, although accurately reflecting Chinese ambitions toward that island, are effective decoys to draw US attention away from other areas. Announced American “pivots” are invitations for Chinese expansion elsewhere.
China is very clear regarding its ambitions. China does not want to destroy the world; it wants to dominate it. These ambitions are supported by its actions. Chinese military aggression has been limited; it expands its presence and influence through investment, infiltration, penetration of media and institutions, participation in international groups and organizations, and commercial trade.
It seeks to isolate the United States economically and politically. Regardless of some internal influences, the United States cannot maintain its prosperity and vitality isolated in a Chinese world.
“My dear Rick, when will you realize that in this world today, isolationism is no longer a practical policy?”
Ferrari (Sydney Greenstreet) in “Casablanca”
China is expanding on a global scale. To counter its expansion, the US must expand its own thinking and foreign policy to a global scale as it did in World War II and the Cold War. It must quit thinking in terms of separate theaters of activity and confrontation. No pivots. It must improve relations with allies and expand its network to include new ones. The US needs a new, unconventional strategy and nimble, imaginative, quick-action, decisive tactics to counter China.
China has played the Taiwan card carefully. It harassed Taiwan with short sea and air incursions which gradually increased. It recently expanded those to a naval “exercise” of a few days which surrounded the island. I expect it will gradually increase the length of those “exercises” to naval blockades of short, but increasing, term.
Consider if China imposed a scheduled blockade of three weeks. Would the US go to war to end a blockade which will end anyway in a short time? Particularly when US wargames predict US losses will be huge and we shall lose the war? If China then scheduled one of four weeks, then five weeks, then six, every couple of months, what is the limit and break point? When do half-plus-one of the Taiwanese people decide the US is not doing anything and vote to join China? At that point, done deal for Taiwan. How do we counter such a program? We had better start thinking about it on a global scale or we shall be wondering what hit us – and where.
Asians study us and know exactly how we react, negotiate, think, behave, and plan under various circumstances. Recent blundering meetings of Biden Administration representatives with Chinese officials were embarrassing. They demonstrated we need to develop our skills and understanding of the Chinese in order to deal with them. Policy makers should consult with people who have a history of doing business in Asia. Many have long associations, contacts, friends, and colleagues there and have developed understanding of how to deal with Asians.
The US has a history of vague and changing objectives when it engages in conflicts. Those conflicts then become protracted as the US seeks an undefined endpoint. Many commentators advocate for an aggressive confrontation with the Chinese to achieve “victory”. Slogans about victory are not a valid basis for going to war.
The US must consider carefully what will be its objectives in confrontation with China. Do we want to cause a collapse of Chinese communism? Tiny Hong Kong became an economic and financial powerhouse with 24/7 capitalism under benign British rule. Scale that up to China’s size as a capitalistic society. We should wish not for what will bury us. Our objectives for confrontation with China may best be something more subtle.
By oilandgas360.com contributor Dr. Charles Kohlhaas
“The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Oil & Gas 360.
